If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

The defendant is the owner of the automobile B.

Despite the fact that the Defendant was prohibited from operating a motor vehicle that was not covered by mandatory insurance on the road, the Defendant operated the motor vehicle that was not covered by mandatory insurance on September 17, 2008 and on February 20, 2009, each of the Seo-gu Daejeon Daejeon Daejeon Daejeon Daejeon District Court Decision 200:51, Sept. 17, 2008.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of the register of automobiles, matters of medical insurance, inquiry of matters concerning insurance contracts, and of the law of noninsurance operation;

1. The main text of Article 46(2) and Article 8 of the former Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (amended by Act No. 11369, Feb. 22, 2012; hereinafter “former Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act”) concerning criminal facts

1. Selection of each alternative fine for punishment;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (limited to concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed for a violation of the former Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, dated February 20, 2009, with heavier penalty);

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

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;