Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

No motor vehicle which is not covered by mandatory insurance shall be operated on a road.

Nevertheless, at around 15:00 on March 13, 2015, the Defendant driven the B Costex Engine that was not covered by mandatory insurance at approximately 10km section from the roads near Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, etc. to the front intersection of the National Cemetery.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. C's statement on the occurrence of traffic accidents;

1. A traffic accident occurrence report;

1. A written confirmation of medical treatment (C);

1. Application of written estimates and mandatory insurance-related statutes;

1. Article 46 (2) 2 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act and the main sentence of Article 8 of the Act on the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation and Selection of fines concerning facts constituting an offense;

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

1. A summary of the facts charged under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and the Violation of the Road Traffic Act) of the order of provisional payment (the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and the Violation of the Road Traffic Act) is driving the above vehicle around 15:0 on March 13, 2015 and the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 2 is proceeding at a speed of 10 km per hour between the two-lanes of the front road of the National Cemetery National Cemetery from the Black-dong

The course has changed to a four-lane.

In such cases, when it is likely that a person engaged in driving of a motor vehicle would impede the normal traffic of other motor vehicles that he/she intends to change, he/she shall not change course, and he/she has a duty of care to prevent accidents by changing the lane safely, such as making it well scambling.

Nevertheless, when the defendant neglected this and neglected the course, the defendant left the left side of the E-Vehicle driven by the victim C(33 years of age) who was standing in the signal atmosphere at the four-lanes of the same room, and led the part above the right part of the driver's vehicle to the front part of the Defendant's driving vehicle.

Ultimately, the Defendant is guilty of occupational negligence as above.