자동차관리법위반등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal (2 million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.
2. It is recognized that the Defendant’s mistake is divided, that there is no history of punishment for the same kind of crime, that there is no particular criminal history after the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 500,000 for an injury in 198, and that there is no good health.
However, in the event that a vehicle is operated without registration of transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle, it would hinder the state's automobile management business such as imposition of fines for violation of laws and regulations, collection of automobile tax, etc., it is difficult to protect the victim because it is difficult to determine the driver at the time of the occurrence of a traffic accident, and it is necessary to strictly prohibit it. In light of the legislative purpose of the Guarantee of Automobile Damage Compensation Act, in order to protect the victims of a motor vehicle accident and prevent social loss, it is also necessary to strictly prohibit the operation of a motor vehicle not covered by mandatory insurance in order to promote the sound development of the motor vehicle transport by protecting the victims of the motor vehicle accident and preventing social loss. It is also necessary for the court below to set a punishment by lowering the amount higher than the fine amount prescribed by the summary order, and it is not recognized that the court below's punishment is unfair by taking into account all sentencing conditions specified in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime of this case,
Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.
3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the lower court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da13686, Dec. 29, 2015). As such, it is obvious that the “automobile Management Act” in the pertinent Article of the Act and the provision of the choice of punishment regarding criminal facts for which the statutory application is applicable is a clerical error in the former Automobile Management Act, Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure.