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

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the driver of the first passenger car in B, and the victim C is the driver of the fourth passenger car in D collection.

Around June 1, 2017, the Defendant stated the date and time of the commission of the crime in the indictment around 09:02 around June 1, 2018. However, this is merely the same as mentioned above on the basis of the date and time of the crime committed by the victim on convenience while indictmenting the Defendant and the victim together with the Defendant. Since the time when the Defendant shocked the victim’s vehicle appears to be around 09:02 on the same day, it is corrected ex officio as above.

While operating the last car in the vicinity of the Dong Kim Jong-si, Kim Jong-si, which is located in the Dong Jong-si Kim Jong-si, there was a fact that the victim C would interfere with the course of the defendant's driver's vehicle due to the driver's driver's car. However, the driver's use of the last vehicle, which is a dangerous object, caused the driver's use of the driver's car, so that the repair cost equivalent to the sum of 1,581,318 won, such as the exchange of the driver's mother's bus owned by the victim, was damaged.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspects of the accused and C by prosecutors;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. An investigation report (in relation to attaching the C-Sable video data to the closure of the C-Sable video data);

1. Blue boxes and video CDs;

1. Application of the written estimate statutes;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 369 (1) and 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. At the time of the summary of the allegation, the Defendant only conflict with the victim’s vehicle in the ordinary process of changing the lane, and there is no intention of damage.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence presented prior to the determination, the Defendant may at least recognize the fact that the Defendant intentionally shocked the victim’s vehicle by failing to exhaust the victim’s vehicle. Therefore, the above assertion is without merit.