교통사고처리특례법위반등
Defendant shall be punished by a fine not exceeding seven million won.
Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one million won shall be the one day.
Punishment of the crime
On March 21, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for two years with prison labor for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Habitual Bribery) at the Busan District Court on March 21, 2013 and is still under probation after the decision became final and conclusive on March 29, 2013.
1. A person who has taken over a registered motor vehicle shall file an application for the registration of transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle with the Mayor/Do Governor, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, while the defendant has not filed an application for the registration of transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle until August 25, 2013, by taking over a motor vehicle registered as a result of sale on or around July 20, 2013;
2. A person who violates the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act shall not operate a motor vehicle on a road without mandatory insurance. On August 25, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around 06:08, the Defendant operated a motor vehicle with DSS 520 motor vehicle not covered by mandatory insurance in a section of about 10km from the front day of the Busan Seo-dong, Seocheon-dong, Busan, Busan to the front day of the Busan, Seocheon-dong, Seocheon-dong, Busan to the end of the store.
3. The accused is a person who is engaged in driving of a vehicle in Dou 520 vehicle in violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, the Road Traffic Act, the Road Traffic Act, and the Road Traffic Act;
On August 25, 2013, the Defendant driven the said car under the influence of alcohol of 0.053% without obtaining a driver’s license on August 25, 2013, and tried to drive the said car along the two-lanes of the two-lanes in front of the Mau-gu Steering-dong, Busan.
At the time, the defendant was followed by the Fsch Rexton car of the victim E(the age of 42) driving in the same direction, and thus, the person engaged in driving service had a duty of care to look well about the situation and secure and proceed safety distance.
Nevertheless, the defendant is under the influence of alcohol and drives it as it is.