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

Although the Defendant was prohibited from operating a vehicle that was not covered by mandatory insurance with the owner of the vehicle B on the road, the Defendant operated the said vehicle that was not covered by mandatory insurance on the road, such as the list of crimes in the attached Table.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement of the police suspect interrogation protocol against the accused;

1. Details of non-insurance operations, details of mandatory insurance coverage, and application of each of the Acts and subordinate statutes entered in the automobile registration ledger (A);

1. The main sentence of Article 46(2), the main sentence of Article 8 (amended by Act No. 11369, Feb. 22, 2012; April 4, 2012; Act No. 11248, Jul. 24, 2012; Act No. 1135, Aug. 3, 2012; Act No. 1356, Aug. 24, 2012; Act No. 13554, Oct. 25, 2015; Act No. 1354, Oct. 21, 2015; Act No. 1354, Oct. 21, 2015; Act No. 12544, Oct. 14, 2013; Act No. 12256, Jan. 24, 2015; Act No. 12256, Jan. 21, 2014>

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

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The grounds for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act include a large number of crimes committed by the Defendant over a long period of time, the Defendant has a record of being fined twice as a traffic crime, the Defendant has no record of criminal punishment exceeding a fine, and the Defendant has no record of being sentenced to criminal punishment, and all of the crimes are recognized, and the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, etc. are reflected in the arguments of the instant case, and the punishment as set forth in the order shall be determined by taking into account