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

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving of D high-speed cars. On March 18, 2012, the Defendant driven the above vehicle around 18:00 on March 18, 2012, and driven the three-lanes of the three-lanes in front of Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Guro-gu Hospital to the private distance from Guro-gu University Hospital, Guro-gu, Seoul, Seoul, with no proper consideration of the front-distances while driving the three-lanes of the three-lanes to the private distance of Guro-gu Office, Guro-gu, Seoul, and caused the Defendant’s vehicle back to the front-hands of the Defendant’s vehicle.

The Defendant, through occupational negligence, committed an act of getting the victim to suffer bodily injury, such as climatic salt, which requires approximately two weeks of medical treatment, but immediately stopped and escaped without taking necessary measures, such as aiding the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. A traffic accident actual condition survey report, estimate, and medical certificate;

1. Application of the law as a result of fact inquiry

1. The defendant's selection of a fine under Article 5-3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 268 of the Criminal Act, and the defendant and his defense counsel against the crime of this case committed all necessary relief measures on the ground that the defendant confirmed the condition of the victim after the accident of this case and was off from the site of Y. However, according to the evidence above, the defendant asserted that ① the defendant stopped after the accident of this case and asked the victim to order him/her to stop at the accident of this case, and when the accident of drinking was discovered in the course of consultation on the handling of the accident, he/she left the scene of the victim before the above consultation was completed. ② Whether the insurance company at the time was an insurance company's receipt of the accident of this case, there was no discussion about whether the defendant was injured by the victim or how to treat the accident of this case. ③ The defendant thereafter hospitalized him/her in G foreign countries on the following day of the accident of this case.