If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

The defendant is a holder of the I's low-priced car.

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

On October 10, 2016, around 16:30 on October 16, 2016, the Defendant operated the said car without mandatory insurance at approximately 3.6 km distance from the front of the upper Dong-dong court in Bupyeong-si to the front of the 81stlue village street in the same city-ro.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Reporting on detection of motor vehicle damage;

1. Inquiry into mandatory insurance;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing vehicle photographs;

1. Relevant Article 46 of the Act concerning facts constituting an offense, and Article 46 (2) 2 and the main sentence of Article 8 of the Guarantee of Compensation for Motor Vehicle Damages, and Selection of fines;

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

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion on Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant was subject to a fine for negligence by an administrative authority on the fact that the instant vehicle did not purchase mandatory insurance with respect to the instant vehicle, and thus, the Defendant’s further criminal punishment on the operation of the instant vehicle, which the Defendant did not purchase mandatory insurance, violates the principle of no matter of interest, or the principle of prohibition of double punishment.

The criminal punishment against the owner of an automobile who operated a motor vehicle without mandatory insurance under Article 46 (2) 2 of the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Act and the imposition of fines for negligence against the owner of the motor vehicle who did not purchase mandatory insurance under Article 48 (3) 1 of the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Act are different from the act of basic facts subject to such punishment or sanction, and thus cannot be deemed double punishment prohibited under Article 13 (1) of the Constitution (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3792, Apr. 23, 2015). This part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

The sentencing was identified in the records of this case and the trial process, such as the fact that the accused has been punished several times.