No person shall operate any motor vehicle on a road, which has not been covered by mandatory insurance.

Nevertheless, on March 18, 2016, the Defendant operated the said car without mandatory insurance from around 60 km to the front of the two sides of the wife population from the roads near the Dong-si, 09:50 on March 18, 2016.

2. The head of the Si/Gun/Gu may notify an offender who has violated Article 46(2) of the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Act to pay a penalty (Article 51(1) of the same Act). Accordingly, a person who has paid the penalty is not subject to further punishment against the offense (Article 53(1) of the same Act). In this case, it is reasonable to interpret Article 53(1) of the same Act as “the purport of recognizing the validity corresponding to the final and conclusive judgment of payment of penalty” (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do849, Nov. 22, 2002). According to the records, the Defendant was notified of the penalty amounting to KRW 400,00 due to a violation of Article 46(2) of the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Act as stated in the facts charged, and the facts charged by the Defendant and the Defendant are not subject to punishment again for damages pursuant to Article 53(1) of the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Act.

3. In conclusion, this case is equivalent to the time when a final judgment has been rendered, and thus, a judgment of acquittal shall be rendered pursuant to Article 326 subparagraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act.