Since the final and conclusive judgment is not effective in the facts charged in this case, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case.

2) The sentence of the lower court that was unfair in sentencing (an amount of KRW 500,00) is too unreasonable.

2. The crime of violating the Road Traffic Act due to a driving without a license on the grounds of misapprehension of the legal doctrine is committed each driving day on the basis of the driving day on which one driving day is driven in the same opportunity and the next day is continuously driven in the same opportunity, except in special cases.

must be viewed.

Therefore, the first crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act due to driving without a license is established for each driving day, and even if an act of driving without a license has been repeated over several days with intent to continue driving without a license, such act cannot be deemed a single crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do6281, Jul. 23, 2002). Such a legal principle also applies to the act of driving without a mandatory insurance.

The facts charged of this case are as follows: the defendant on April 26, 2013 and

4. 28. Operation of the instant vehicle without mandatory insurance on 28. Inasmuch as the crime for which judgment became final and conclusive and the concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, this judgment does not affect the said final judgment.

Therefore, the lower court’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged is justifiable.

3. The Defendant appears to have continuously operated a vehicle with no mandatory insurance for a certain period of time in determining the unfair argument of sentencing.

By establishing a system that guarantees the compensation for damages caused by car accidents, the victims shall be protected and social losses shall be incurred.