When the defendant does not pay the above fine.

1. On October 201, 2013, around 20:23, the Defendant driven B 1 ton of cargo vehicles from the street in front of the game 20.086% of the blood alcohol concentration to the top of the hotel to be opened up to 117, the Seoul Gwangjin-gu Square-dong, Seoul.

2. The Defendant operated B1 ton cargo vehicles without mandatory insurance at the aforementioned date and place.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Inquiry the results of drinking driving control, and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes regarding mandatory insurance;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning facts constituting an offense, Articles 148-2 (2) 3 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, Articles 46 (2) 2 and 8 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and selection of fines;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Although the reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act appears to be an economically difficult situation as an elderly person, if the defendant acknowledged the crime, he/she does not completely repent of his/her behavior, such as where he/she acknowledged the crime, by regulating by 112 declaration, and claiming that punishment is unfair, and most of all, in light of the general sentencing guidelines for the crime driving a non-insurance vehicle in the state of drinking, the amount of fine stipulated in the summary order of this case is rather uneasible and thus, the above fine is imposed.