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

A person who intends to use or operate construction machinery without registering with an authority having jurisdiction over the owner's domicile or place of use of construction machinery, shall obtain a construction machinery operator's license.

From February 2, 2013 to February 25, 2015, from February 25, 2015 to February 09, 2015, the Defendant used a scood season by following up to 10 times soil, which is a construction machinery owned by the Defendant and not registered with the competent authority, or by piling up a scood, over 10 times, and operated the scood season.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to voluntarily attend persons suspected of violating the Construction Machinery Management Act, report on internal investigation, and report on internal investigation;

1. Relevant legal provisions for facts constituting an offense, and Articles 40 subparagraph 1 and 4 (1) of the Construction Machinery Management Act that choose a punishment (the point of operating unregistered construction machinery, the point of fines), Article 41 subparagraph 2 of the Construction Machinery Management Act, and Articles 41 and 26 (1) of the Construction Machinery Management Act (the point of operating unregistered construction machinery,

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act among concurrent crimes (Aggravation of concurrent crimes stipulated in the crime of violating the Construction Machinery Management Act due to the operation of unregistered construction machinery, heavier punishment) (A prosecutor shall be deemed to be concurrent crimes, even though he/she was prosecuted as an ordinary concurrent crimes)

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order had a record of having been sentenced to a fine of one million won on September 7, 1998 as a violation of the Road Traffic Act. However, this punishment power has been about 17 years prior to this point. The defendant recognized all the crimes of this case, and there is no record that the defendant was punished as a violation of the Construction Machinery Management Act or was punished heavier than a fine, and there is no other record that the defendant was punished as a violation of the Construction Machinery Management Act, and the age, character, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime.