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

If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

On October 14, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to four months of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Road Traffic Act in the Suwon District Court’s Eunpyeong Housing Site, etc., and the judgment on October 22, 2014 became final and conclusive.

The defendant is a person who drives a car in the course of business.

1. Around 03:50 on August 16, 2013, the Defendant: (a) driven the said car on the road in front of the 234 main apartment 404-dong, Gangseo-gu, Seoul; and (b) driven the said car along the three-lanes in the direction of the traffic distance from the 2nd intersection of the month.

The place is where the center line of yellow solid lines is installed, and all drivers of vehicles have the duty of care to proceed on the side of the road well on which the center line is marked.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and proceeded with the center line by driving at a stroke, and the front part of the Ework of D(43 years old) driving in the direction of the opposite to the mastal conflict with the front part of the Defendant's car in front of the left-hand vehicle.

After the above accident, the Defendant escaped without any measure while leaving the vehicle driven by the Defendant on the road.

2. The Defendant in violation of the Road Traffic Act damaged the damaged vehicle’s property equivalent to KRW 1,092,610 in the event of an accident as referred to in the above paragraph (1).

3. The Defendant violated the Road Traffic Act (driving) while under the influence of alcohol by 0.140% in the event of an accident like the above paragraph (1) of the same Article, driving the said car up to approximately 500 meters on the road front of the 234 main apartment house 404-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, Seoul, with the alcohol concentration of 0.140% in the case of an accident.

4. He shall not operate any motor vehicle on a road which is not covered by mandatory insurance in violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act;

Nevertheless, the Defendant operated the said car without purchasing an automobile mandatory insurance policy, such as the foregoing paragraph (3).

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. D. D.