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

The Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving of a C Poter cargo vehicle.

At around 11:10 on July 19, 2014, the Defendant driven the above cargo which was not covered by mandatory insurance, and made the front distance of the rice processing plant to turn to the left at the middle of the new eth of the eth of the new eth of the new Cheongju-gun.

Since the location is in the vicinity of the 3-distance intersection connected to the national highways of 20, a person engaged in driving service has a duty of care to prevent accidents by thoroughly examining the front and rear left.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and went beyond the central line, and caused the 25 tons of the E-25 tons of the driver's seat of the E-25 tons of the truck, which the victim D driven in the opposite direction, to the front part of the said cargo vehicle.

The Defendant damaged the victim’s truck by occupational negligence so that the amount of KRW 5,704,161 is equivalent to the repair cost.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. A traffic accident report and a traffic accident report;

1. Inquiry into information on non-performance of mandatory insurance;

1. Application of the written estimate statutes;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning the facts constituting an offense, Article 151 of the Road Traffic Act which selects punishment, Article 46 (2) 2 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, the main sentence of Article 8 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and the choice of fines, respectively;

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

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

1. The crime of this case on the ground of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order is that the defendant's operation of cargo vehicles that are not covered by mandatory insurance and caused damage to the truck that is driven by the opposite line due to the occupational negligence committed by the central line while driving the cargo vehicles that are not covered by mandatory insurance, and the case is not easy. The defendant is the above cargo vehicle for about four years.