No one shall operate a motor vehicle on the road that is not covered by the mandatory insurance of motor vehicles, but the defendant operated a cub motor vehicle in B on October 20, 2012 at the road located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Seoul Metropolitan Government), which is located in the Daub-dong, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul, on July 18, 201, on the road located in the Doub-gu, Chungcheongnam-si, Seoul, on the road located in the Doub-gu, Chungcheongnam-si, on January 4, 2012, around January 8, 2012, on the road located in the Doub-gu, Seoyang-si and Pakistan-si, Seoul, on February 1, 2012, and on the road that is located in the Doub-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul, and on February 8, 2012, the defendant was not insured by the mandatory insurance of the motor vehicle in the Yak-si.

2. The judgment unit, the car in C, and C, are only registered as the owner in the automobile registration ledger, and the defendant operated the car as the owner under the Act on the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation for which the operation control or operation profit of the said car has been granted.

There is no evidence to see that there is no evidence (D) and the police interrogation protocol against the accused and the defense counsel already consented, and Article 318(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act cannot be deemed as a provision regarding the consent of evidence even if the evidence already consented to be admitted as evidence as in the instant case, and thus, the above evidence is inadmissible. 3. In conclusion, the facts charged in the instant case constitute a case where there is no proof of a crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted by the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment against the accused is not disclosed in accordance with the proviso of Article 58(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act.