Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who drives a rocketing cargo vehicle as his duties.

On August 29, 2017, the Defendant driven the above vehicle at around 06:35 on August 29, 2017, and changed the course to two lanes at a speed of about 60 km in speed (self-statement) from the parallel between the parallel between Egnb and Egnb.

In such cases, when it is likely that a person engaged in driving service of a motor vehicle may impede normal traffic of other motor vehicles running in the direction of the change, he/she shall not change his/her course, and has the duty of care to give advance notice of change of course and to prevent accidents by safely changing the lane through the operation of direction direction, etc. in advance, and the situation of traffic is well considered.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and changed the lanes in the same direction, which led to a speed of about 20 km in speed according to the same direction, and obstructed the course of the Eststy vehicle driven by the victim D, thereby conflicting with the fences above the left side of the vehicle under consideration and the fences above the right side of the damaged vehicle.

Although Defendant 2 suffered from an injury, such as satisfe, tension, etc., on the part of the victim by occupational negligence as above, Defendant 2 escaped without taking measures such as aiding the victim, even though he did not take measures such as aiding the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A written statement on the occurrence of D traffic accidents;

1. Application of the laws and regulations on de facto survey reports, investigation reports (in relation to the submission of diagnosis reports), black stuffs images, and vehicle photo CDs;

1. Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 5-3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 268 of the Criminal Act and selection of fines concerning the crime;

1. As to the assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel regarding Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act to be confined in a workhouse, the Defendant and his defense counsel did not have the intent to commit the crime of escape only when the Defendant, at the time of the instant accident, was aware that his/her vehicle was infected with the stone.

It is so argued.