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

On October 30, 2013, the Defendant operated D Kanchep vehicle that was not covered by mandatory insurance on the front side of the building C in the Navy, Namnam-gun, around 17:20.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Mandatory insurance (D);

1. A traffic accident report;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing accident scene photographs;

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

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

1. The part rejecting a public prosecution under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act against the provisional payment order (a violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and a violation of Road Traffic Act);

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is the driver of DKakn Corp, and the Defendant, on October 30, 2013, driven the above 17:20 and proceeded along the road adjacent to the building C in south-gun, and was negligent in performing his/her duty of care in the direction of Gu school in the direction of Gu school in the direction of Gu school, and caused damage to the repair cost sources due to the full 490,00 won due to the replacement of the front wheel, which was driven by the victim E (the age of 82) who was directly driven in the direction of the new bag apartment in the face of the old bag, due to the occupational negligence in the course of driving the front bag, while he/she neglected to perform his/her duty of care in the direction of Gu school in the direction of Gu school.

2. This part of the facts charged is a crime falling under Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and Article 151 of the Road Traffic Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent pursuant to the main sentence of Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents. Since a written agreement on March 28, 2016, on which the victim E expressed his/her intent not to be punished, was submitted to this court.