교통사고처리특례법위반등
A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.
When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.
Punishment of the crime
On April 19, 2014, around 11:45, the Defendant operated C vehicles that did not purchase mandatory insurance on the airfield shooting distance on the airfield road according to the border water in Suwon-si, Suwon-si.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant's legal statement;
1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on mandatory insurance;
1. Relevant Article 46 (2) 2 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act and the main sentence of Article 8 (Selection of Fine) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act concerning facts constituting an offense;
1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;
1. Part concerning the dismissal of prosecution under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (Violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and Violation of the Road Traffic Act);
1. On April 19, 2014, at around 11:45, the Defendant: (a) driven a C-A-car and operated a five-lane 5-lane road of the airfield distance from the parallel to the terminal shooting distance from the parallel to the intersection at the time of water level; (b) caused the injury of the victim D (Nam, 49 years old); (c) the back part of the E-vehicle of the victim D (Nam, 49 years old) waiting for the signal at the front direction of the vehicle; and (d) damaged the victim’s vehicle at the same time, 299,640 won in estimate of the repair cost.
2. Each of the above facts charged is a crime falling under Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and Article 151 of the Road Traffic Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent pursuant to the main sentence of Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents. According to the records, the fact that the victim has withdrawn his/her wish to punish the defendant on April 15, 2015, which is the date the prosecution of this case was instituted, can be acknowledged. Thus, this part of the indictment is dismissed in accordance with