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

The defendant is a holder of the B's driver car.

1. On July 25, 2013, the Defendant violated the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Act, without purchasing mandatory insurance around 20:23 on July 25, 2013, the said automobile was operated at “44.7 km in Seoul on the west coast Highway between wooden and Seoul.”

2. On July 26, 2013, the Defendant violated the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Act: (a) operated the said automobile on the road front of the Mandong-gun, Saman-gun, Saman-gun, Naman-gun, without purchasing mandatory insurance.

3. On October 18, 2013, the Defendant violated the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Act, and operated the said motor vehicle on the road front of the “Fucuk Dum tunnel” in front of the front of the “Fu-gun,” without purchasing mandatory insurance around October 18, 2013.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of partially the police officers of the accused;

1. Report on the criminal place;

1. Inspection of the Automobile Register -B

1. Force of the medical insurance contract -B

1. Inquiries into non-insurance operations -B

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of suspect C by the police;

1. Written Statements (D, C Application of Acts and subordinate statutes);

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

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

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

1. The Defendant’s assertion on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the Provisional Payment Order is inconsistent with the Defendant’s operation of the instant vehicle, but it was unaware of whether the insurance was terminated because C was under the insurance management of all vehicles at the time.

The argument is asserted.

However, according to the above adopted evidence, in particular C’s statement, it can be recognized that the Defendant was operating the instant vehicle even with the knowledge that the Defendant was a vehicle with no insurance coverage. Therefore, the above assertion is rejected.