A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

1. The Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a cuss car B in the case of a violation of the Road Traffic Act (not taking measures after accidents) and the Road Traffic Act (driving).

On December 1, 2018, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol with 0.095% of blood alcohol concentration around 01:50 on December 1, 2018, and was driving the said car and driving the said car in front of the “DD Cooperative” road in Lhyeong-si C at the “E market” side from the “E market” side to the “F market” side, and was driving along one lane between two laness.

Since there is a central separation cost on the left side of the first lane, in such a case, the driver of the motor vehicle has a duty of care to live well the front side and the left side of the motor vehicle, and to safely proceed within the extent that it does not have the central separation zone.

Nevertheless, under the influence of alcohol, the Defendant was negligent in proceeding without neglecting it, and the degree of approximately 20 meters of the central separation zone owned by the victim gate Viewing and listening to the above car was transferred to the front part of the left side of the car.

Ultimately, the Defendant, by occupational negligence, escaped without taking necessary measures, such as immediately reporting an accident, even though the repair cost of the central separation unit was damaged to approximately KRW 2,840,00,000.

2. At around 02:25 on December 1, 2018, the Defendant of the obstruction of performance of official duties: (a) reported 112 to the fact that the Defendant: (b) escaped in the above traffic accident; (c) caused another second accident; and (d) was voluntarily carried out by the guard, etc. of the police box affiliated with the police box of the police station at the police station at the police station at the police station at the police station at the time; and (d) without any justifiable reason, expressed to the above I that the Defendant “a sprinking” was “a sprinking sprinking sprinking sprink at the police station at the time.”

Accordingly, the defendant assaulted the above I and interfered with the police officer's legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of report 112.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1.With respect to J, K, and I, respectively.