Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 200,000 won.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a low-priced car.

On September 25, 2019, the Defendant driven the above vehicle on September 15, 2015:34, and led to the course of the parking lot of three-story Ctel underground from the second underground floor to the fourth underground floor.

In such a case, a person engaged in driving service has a duty of care to care in preventing accidents by accurately manipulating the steering direction and brake system.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected this and proceeded to the right side of the vehicle in front of the vehicle under consideration after the left side of the E Q900 vehicle owned by the victim D (28C) who was parked on the right side of the proceeding direction by negligence.

The Defendant left the scene without providing the victim with personal information, such as telephone numbers, even after destroying property equivalent to approximately KRW 1,890,708 of the repair cost for the damaged vehicle due to such occupational negligence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the scene photographs, estimates, CD1 (Ctel CCTVs), inquiries into facts (written requests for payment of automobile insurance proceeds, receipt of accidents, and marks of contract) by the defendant's partial statement on the actual status of the defendant's statement;

1. Relevant Article of the Act and Article 156 subparagraph 10 of the Road Traffic Act, and Article 54 (1) 2 (Selection of Penalty) of the same Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

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

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion on the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel did not shock the victim’s vehicle with the vehicle driven by the Defendant at the time and place indicated in the facts charged, and even if it was true that it was shock, the Defendant could not think of the measures to provide personal information to the victim since it did not recognize that it was shock.

2. Evidence presented prior to the determination (in particular, evidence list No. 10 No. 10, 2019. 25. 15-35.