Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

Despite the fact that the Defendant was prohibited from operating a motor vehicle not covered by mandatory insurance on the road, the Defendant operated a two-wheeled vehicle with no number plate that is not covered by mandatory insurance from the side of the Tae River to SK Apartment on April 14, 2014, in front of the “us convenience store” located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-ro 135, Ulsan-ro, Ulsan-ro, 135.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Application of the statutes on the register of driver's licenses;

1. Article 46 (2) 2 of the Act on Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation and the main sentence of Article 8 of the Act on Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation - Selection of fines concerning facts constituting an offense;

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

1. The dismissal part of the prosecution under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the facts charged is a person engaging in driving a two-wheeled vehicle with no number plate.

At around 01:50 on April 14, 2014, the Defendant driven the said two-wheeled vehicle, and driven it to the SK apartment from the direction of Taecheon-gu, Ulsan-ro, the front of the “us convenience store” located in 135, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-ro.

At the time, the Eststyna taxi driven by the victim C(54 years old) entered the above shooting distance according to the vehicle running signal and was in a straight line from the parallel of the East River Hospital. Therefore, the driver of the motor vehicle has a duty of care to check whether there is a vehicle that is crossing by reducing or temporarily stopping the speed prior to entering the intersection, and to check whether there is a vehicle, etc., and to safely drive the motor vehicle by keeping the movement well.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and got the front part of the two-wheeled taxi to be driven by the Defendant on the right side of the two-wheeled vehicle driving by the Defendant, and got the pedestrian signal installed at the same place due to the shock of the said taxi.

Ultimately, the Defendant is guilty of occupational negligence as above.