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

The defendant is a holder of Bubura car.

No person shall operate any motor vehicle which is not covered by mandatory insurance on a road.

Nevertheless, on June 29, 2012, at around 00:56, the Defendant: (a) had 160 U.S., Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, Bupyeong-gu, 160 U.S., U.S., 160 U.S., U.S., 160 U.S., U.S., U.S., U.S., U.S., 300 U.S., U.S., U.S., U.S., U.S., U.S., U.S., U.S., U.S., U.S., and U.S., U.S.A.

Over the course, C had C operate a car with a dial with no mandatory insurance policy.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the suspect against D, E, and the defendant;

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol of D or E;

1. Inquiry into non-insurance operation vehicles, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing mandatory insurance contracts;

1. Relevant legal provisions and the main text of Article 46 (2) and Article 8 of the former Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (amended by Act No. 11369, Feb. 22, 2012) concerning criminal facts;

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

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

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act asserts that the Defendant is not a party to mandatory insurance on the ground that he/she did not acquire ownership of the above vehicle, but Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act provides that not only the owner of the vehicle but also the owner of the vehicle “a person who has the right to use the vehicle and who operates the vehicle for himself/herself.” According to each of the above evidence, the Defendant is not a temporary loan from E at the time.