Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

The defendant is a holder of B-learning passenger car.

No automobile which is not covered by mandatory insurance shall be operated on a road.

On October 12, 2015, the Defendant operated the said automobile, which was not covered by mandatory insurance at the 104 high-speed high-speed 104 high-speed city.

[The defendant asserts that the defendant is subject to duplicate punishment.]

According to the records of this case, the crime of violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Act is not mandatory insurance and constitutes one crime whenever a motor vehicle is operated without being covered by the mandatory insurance. Since the Defendant’s previous operation on December 8, 2015 and the crime of this case (operation on October 12, 2015) operated a motor vehicle on another day, the aforementioned assertion is without merit.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Report on the offender, provision of non-insurance operating vehicle information, inquiry into an uninsurance operating vehicle, inquiry into history of a medical insurance contract, and application of the statutes of the ledger of Automobile Registration;

1. Relevant Article 46 of the Act concerning facts constituting an offense, and Article 46 (2) 2 and the main sentence of Article 8 of the Guarantee of Compensation for Motor Vehicle Damages, and Selection of fines;

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 for the order of provisional payment are found to be erroneous and against the defendant. However, considering the fact that the defendant did not purchase mandatory insurance for a considerable period of time and had the records of having been punished several times for the same crime, the punishment is determined as ordered.