자동차손해배상보장법위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Legal principles 1) The imposition of a fine for negligence by the administrative authority on the failure to purchase the mandatory insurance on the instant vehicle is being carried out. Therefore, a new criminal punishment on the operation of the instant vehicle, which the Defendant did not purchase the mandatory insurance, constitutes a violation of the principle of absence of interest or the principle of prohibition of double punishment (hereinafter “No. 1 assertion”). 2) The Defendant did not recognize that the instant vehicle was a criminal prosecution case at the time of operating the instant vehicle, and did not recognize illegality (hereinafter “No. 2 assertion”). 3) The Defendant was not the owner of the instant vehicle (hereinafter “No. 3 assertion”). 4) The Defendant did not violate any law while driving the instant vehicle, and since the enforcement officer took advantage of a general vehicle, which is not the police officer, and it constitutes an unlawful crackdown that infringes on the Defendant’s privacy (hereinafter “No. 40 penalty”), this constitutes an unlawful punishment against the Defendant without delay.
2. Determination
A. Before determining on the grounds for ex officio appeal, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment for fraud at the Incheon District Court on July 21, 2016, and the judgment became final and conclusive on October 15, 2016. The above crime and the crime that the judgment of the court below, which became final and conclusive, are in a concurrent relationship with a group of concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and are determined by the court below after considering the equity and the reduction or exemption of punishment pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.
However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of the above legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority.