The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 17, 2019, at around 04:50 on December 17, 2019, the Plaintiff went through two-lanes of the road in front of the Gyeonggi-si store located in Gyeonggi-si B at a place located in the Gyeonggi-gu Gyeonggi-do, Gyeonggi-do, and escaped without taking measures, such as aiding and abetting the victim at the scene of the accident (hereinafter “traffic accident in this case”), following the left-hand side of the Estststa vehicle for the victim D (Se. 5 years old), who driven at the normal speed at the above normal speed, due to the shock of the driver to the part front the right-hand part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, resulting in the injury of the scinum, scinum, and the scined part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which requires approximately two weeks medical treatment.

B. On December 27, 2019, the Defendant: (a) applied Article 93(1)6 of the Road Traffic Act to the Plaintiff on the ground that “The Defendant did not take necessary measures, such as aiding and abetting the victim despite having injured the person due to the instant traffic accident”; (b) revoked the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class I ordinary).

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition on February 10, 2020, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s petition for administrative appeal on April 14, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) cannot be deemed to constitute a crime of escape because the injury suffered by the victim is insignificant and thus, it cannot be deemed that the crime of escape is established. Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot be held liable for the crime of escape. Therefore, the instant disposition that was otherwise determined is unlawful. (2) The circumstances seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s exemplary driving with the accident-free driving experience for 11 years, the Plaintiff’s life in ordinary agency driving, the Plaintiff’s distance of residence and place of business as a self-employed person operating a restaurant is about 20km, and it is difficult to use public transportation.