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

The defendant is a holder of C Madoo Motor Vehicle.

On March 1, 2010, around 01:23, the Defendant operated the said automobile which was not covered by mandatory insurance on the roads 485, Mangsan-ro 485, Mangsan-ro (Magsan-dong, 18 complex).

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the police interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Notification of vehicles that have not mandatory insurance provided;

1. Automobile register;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on mandatory insurance;

1. Relevant Article 46 (2) and the main text of Article 8 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11369, Feb. 22, 2012; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the selection of fines concerning criminal facts;

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

1. The Defendant and the defense counsel on the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act asserted that, since the Defendant and the defense counsel provided the instant vehicle as security by borrowing money from the bond business operator at the time of the instant case, the Defendant is only the owner of the instant vehicle, and they do not hold responsibility as the owner

According to the evidence mentioned above, the defendant is the owner of the instant C Dolllon, the fact that the defendant was the owner of the instant C Dollon, the fact that the above automobile was operated on the road in the Goyang-ro, Goyang-ro, 485 (Dalsan-dong, 18 complex) around March 1, 2010, and the above fact that the instant vehicle was not covered by mandatory insurance at the same time is recognized, and in full view of the above facts, it can be acknowledged that the defendant operated a motor vehicle which was not covered by mandatory insurance as stated in the judgment as a owner of the motor vehicle.

Meanwhile, the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion that the Plaintiff offered the instant vehicle to the bond company as security at the time of the instant case was not in the position of the vehicle owner is without any evidence to support this, and even if the Defendant and the defense counsel offered the instant vehicle to the house company as security, it is true