If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

No person shall operate a motor vehicle in violation of an order to stop the operation.

Nevertheless, on October 5, 2016, the Defendant operated a car of C in the name of Co., Ltd. B, which was ordered to suspend operation, on or around October 5, 2016, on March 24, 2017, respectively. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 28135, Sep. 5, 2017>

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Automobile register;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (including a non-prosecution);

1. Article 82 subparagraph 2-2 and Article 24-2 (2) of the former Automobile Management Act (Amended by Act No. 15402, Feb. 21, 2018) applicable to the facts constituting an offense

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. Judgment on the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the assertion is that the Defendant was investigated on February 21, 2017, on the ground that he/she was unable to know the fact that he/she operated a vehicle as stated in the order to suspend operation, but was ordered to suspend operation.

3. 20. Non-prosecution disposition was issued;

In the course of investigation, the Defendant responded to the police officer’s reply that “No operational problem arises as the number plate was removed by paying a fine for negligence by B, which is the owner of the above vehicle.”

Therefore, there is no intention, and there is a justifiable reason to mislead the defendant that the vehicle is not a crime for the operation of the above vehicle even without such intention.

2. There is no evidence to prove that the Defendant responded from the police officer that there was no problem in the operation of the said vehicle prior to each of the instant crimes.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant was aware of an order to suspend the operation of the above vehicle at the time of each of the instant crimes and the order was not released.

The defendant and defense counsel's above assertion.