A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

(b) Summary;

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each statement of witness G, D and L;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Each police statement made in relation to G or D;

1. A traffic accident report;

1. Investigative report (Attachment, such as a copy of the traffic accident report);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on the payment of insurance proceeds;

1. Articles 352, 350(1) (a) (a) and 156, 347(1) (a) and 350(1) (a inclusive of fraud) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime and the choice of imprisonment, respectively;

1. The first sentence of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Concurrent Crimes and Article 1 of the Reasons for the Sentencing [the scope of the Sentencing] Article 38 (1) 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Concurrent Crimes and Article 50 [the scope of the Sentencing] Article 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes (the scope of the Sentencing) that has no basic area (six months to two years] [the scope of the Sentencing] [the scope of the Sentencing] Article 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Concurrent Crimes (6 months to one year and six months), and Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Concurrent Crimes [the scope of the Sentencing] Article 1 of the basic area (6 months to one year) [no special sentencing person] [the fact that there is no specific sentencing person] Article 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes and the fact that no special sentencing is made disadvantageous to six months to one year to one year or more.

There is no record of the same crime, and the degree of deception or conflict is relatively minor, and the punishment was determined in consideration of the age, sex, and circumstances after the crime.

Defendant

In addition, the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant, while under the influence of alcohol at the time, had committed acts such as responding to the victims or demanding the repayment of damages, etc., when the defendant was faced with the victims' vehicle and so on. However, the defendant's defense counsel's assertion that he denied the crime since he had no intention of deceiving the victims after intentionally approaching the accident.

Intimidation, as a means of the crime of threat, is likely to restrict people's freedom of decision-making or interfere with freedom of decision-making.