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

The defendant is a person who has a motor vehicle B with options.

No one shall operate a motor vehicle on the road which is not covered by mandatory insurance. However, from around 14:24 to around 16:07 on April 20, 2012, the Defendant proposed the motor vehicle from around 14:24 to around 16:07 to around 00:33 on April 29, 2012 to around 09:15:3,000,000 from around 0:5:3,000,00,000 from around 09:16,00,000, to around 14:5:0,000,000 from around 14:5:0,00,000 to around 5:3:0,000,000 from around 14:0,000,000 to around 14:5:3,00,000,000 from around 14, 2012.

Accordingly, the defendant operated a motor vehicle on the road which is not covered by mandatory insurance six times.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. (B) inquiry of non-insurance operations vehicles, inquiry of compulsory insurance contracts (B), and perusal (B) of the motor vehicle registration ledger (A);

1. Relevant provisions of the Act and the main sentence of Article 46 (2) and the main sentence of Article 8 of the former Guarantee of Compensation for Automobile Damages (amended by Act No. 11369, Feb. 22, 2012; Act No. 11369, Aug. 23, 2012);

2. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which increases concurrent crimes;

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

4. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is similar to that of the defendant in the case of a provisional payment order. The same vehicle is driving at the same time (as of May 28, 2012), which has already been punished due to the violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Damage Compensation Act, etc., and the defendant’s health and economic situation, etc. are considered as being lower than the summary order.