Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is engaged in the operation of CFIS and other automobiles.

On December 11, 2015, the Defendant driven the above vehicle on December 22:36, 2015, and proceeded with the Do road in the direction of the king-do-ro 288-ro 40 Mayang-do-ro from the direction of the king-do-ro.

In such cases, drivers have a duty of care to prevent accidents due to smoke by accurately operating the steering direction and brakes while living well on the right and the right and the right and the right and the right.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected to do so and got the regulatory spons and sponss installed in the front bank road by negligence.

Although the Defendant damages property due to the above occupational negligence, he did not immediately stop the vehicle and did not take necessary measures, and left the site without leaving the vehicle in the state of the accident.

Summary of Evidence

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. The actual condition survey report;

1. A photograph at the time of an accident or CCTV-faging photograph;

1. The Defendant asserts that the facts charged in this case are not acceptable, on the grounds that there was no damage, such as leaving the control rods, etc. due to the accident in this case. For the crime of causing property damage, the term “damage” means that a material or physical damage is inflicted by directly exercising a tangible power on all or part of the property, etc., thereby destroying or reducing its original utility (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do2307, Sept. 8, 2006). In light of health expenses and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court as to this case, the Defendant, as shown in the above facts charged, was found to have lost its original utility, such as the fact that a vehicle installed on the road operated by himself and her, got up with the control rods and bed, and left up with the vehicle, and thereby reducing its original utility, such as the regulation rods. Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion is rejected.

1. Relevant Articles of the Act and the choice of punishment concerning the facts constituting the crime;