beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant has already been punished for violating the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act due to the operation of vehicles without mandatory insurance. This case constitutes double punishment.
2. Determination
A. The purpose of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act is to protect the victims by establishing a system of guaranteeing the compensation for damage in the event that a person is dead, injured, or property is destroyed or damaged due to the operation of a motor vehicle, and to promote the sound development of the transportation of motor vehicles by preventing social damage caused by an accident of a motor vehicle (Article 1 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act). In the case of a violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act due to the operation of a motor vehicle without insurance, except in special cases such as the case where a person continues to operate the motor vehicle on a certain day and on the same day on the same day as the next day on the same day, it is reasonable to view that there is one act of operating one motor vehicle every day on which a motor vehicle without insurance is operated on the basis of the day on which the motor vehicle is operated. Therefore, the crime of violating the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act
Even if this cannot be viewed as a single crime by combining it.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Do6281 Delivered on July 23, 2002).B
According to the records of this case, the defendant was convicted of a fine of KRW 300,000 on July 21, 2010 that "the defendant operated the motor vehicle of this case which was not covered by the mandatory insurance on September 9, 2010" by the Jung-gu District Court around June 25, 2009, around July 31, 2009, and around September 23, 2009, and around September 23, 2009, and the CC motor vehicle not covered by the mandatory insurance (hereinafter "the motor vehicle of this case"), and that "the defendant operated the motor vehicle of this case which was not covered by the mandatory insurance on September 9, 2010" by the Jung-gu District Court on June 9, 2011.