1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 20, 2015, the Defendant issued the instant disposition revoking the Plaintiff’s driver’s license (Class II ordinary) as of December 4, 2015 pursuant to Article 93(1)6 of the Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 13829, Jan. 27, 2016; hereinafter the same) on the ground that the Plaintiff had injured the Plaintiff due to a traffic accident, as stated in the separate facts constituting a crime, but did not perform on-site relief measures or duty to report.

B. On August 23, 2016, the Plaintiff was indicted for a separate crime and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years in the first instance trial on August 23, 2016. This judgment of the appellate court rendered on November 10, 2016 and the Supreme Court’s dismissal of appeal rendered on February 3, 2017 became final and conclusive as it is by a judgment of the Supreme Court.

(hereinafter “Related criminal judgment”). [The grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 14-1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff is a traffic accident listed in the separate facts constituting the crime (hereinafter “instant traffic accident”).

(2) In the event that there is no negligence on the part of the victim, and the degree of the victim's multi-child relationship is merely 10 days of medical treatment and observation, and it cannot be determined as an injury under the Criminal Act. As long as the Plaintiff directly examined the state of the victim who was deprived of the victim, and provided an opportunity to make a statement by directly communicating the victim, and the victim was notified that there was no fault on the part of the victim at the time of the instant traffic accident, there is no need to take relief measures against the victim at the time of the instant traffic accident, so there is no reason to take such measures. 2) Even if there is a reason to take measures, the injury suffered by the victim is minor, the Plaintiff stopped and stopped, and there was no history of committing the crime related to the traffic accident while driving for about 30 years, and there is no history of committing the crime related to the traffic accident as an insurance solicitor