The punishment of the accused shall be determined by a year of imprisonment.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years after the judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a e-cub vehicle B.

On November 23, 2019, the Defendant driven the said car at around 20:50, and proceeded with the first lane of the second lane in front of the D store located in Chungcheongnam-gun Hong-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, at the direction of the Chungcheongnam-gun Office of Education, about 40km in Si/Gun in the direction of the site of migrants.

At night, and at the edge of a road, other automobiles frequently stop or stop, so a person engaged in driving duties of a motor vehicle has a duty of care to live well on the front side and the left side, and to safely drive the motor vehicle and prevent the accident in advance.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and caused the front part of the F SM5 car parked by the victim E, which was parked in the second lane due to the negligence of breaking the car line, and the rear part of the HM5 car parked by the victim G, and caused the shock to turn about 90 degrees of visibility to the direction of visibility.

Ultimately, the Defendant, by the above occupational negligence, destroyed the above SM5 car repair cost of KRW 2,002,893 and KRW 3,301,729, and escaped without taking necessary measures, even though he did not immediately stop the vehicle.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The actual condition survey report;

1. Written estimate;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing field photographs and booms image photographs;

1. Relevant provisions of the Road Traffic Act and Articles 148 and 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the punishment for a crime;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Code for taking lectures and community service order is not only the crime of this case where the passage of the general public was obstructed and the risk of traffic accidents occurred, but also the investigation was not conducted even if the drinking driving was suspected, and the repair cost was paid through the insurance, etc.