Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one million won shall be the one day.

The Defendant is a person driving three cargo vehicles with B, without purchasing mandatory insurance, driven the above vehicle at around December 23, 2015, and operated on December 23, 2015, a three-distance distance in the west-gu Busan Shipping Daegu at the direction of the marine transportation.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes regarding mandatory insurance;

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

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

1. The part dismissing a public prosecution under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act against the order of provisional payment

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is the driver of B-wing and the third freight truck, and around December 23, 2015, the Defendant driving the said vehicle, which was around 08:30 on December 23, 2015, led to a three-distance distance in the Don-dong, Busan, Daegu, to a marine traffic counter-section.

In this case, there was a duty of care to prevent accidents by accurately manipulating the steering system, steering system, and brakes for those engaged in driving of motor vehicles.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to take care of the traffic situation in the front of the Defendant’s vehicle, and caused the damage to the Defendant’s vehicle in excess of KRW 1,957,00,00 for repairing the damaged vehicle due to the Plaintiff’s Da driving, which was in the front of the Defendant’s vehicle, while driving the vehicle in front of the Defendant’s vehicle, due to the Defendant’s failure to keep the vehicle in front at the front of the vehicle.

2. We examine the judgment. The case is a crime falling under Article 151 of the Road Traffic Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the victim's express intent under the main sentence of Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents. According to the records, the victim can recognize the fact that he/she has withdrawn his/her wish to punish the defendant on February 16, 2016. Thus, this part of the prosecution against the defendant is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.