The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. In light of the fact that the defendant is against the gist of the grounds for appeal, the punishment imposed by the court below (700,000 won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. If a number of acts or acts falling under the name of the same crime as ex officio judgment are continuously conducted for a certain period under the criminal intent of a single and continuous criminal, and the legal benefits of such damage are the same, each of these acts should be punished by a single comprehensive crime.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do4404 Decided July 26, 2007). Also, it is reasonable to deem that the act of operating a vehicle which is not covered by mandatory insurance has one operation act per driving day on the basis of the date of driving a vehicle by social norms. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that each driving day constitutes one crime of violating the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act due to the operation of a vehicle which is not covered by mandatory insurance.

In light of the above legal principles, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s act of operating a vehicle on March 28, 2009, around 04:22, around the same day, around 04:33, and around 04:47 on the same day, among the facts charged in the instant case, continued to perform a single and continuous act for a certain period under the single and continuous criminal intent, and the damage legal interest is the same as that of a single comprehensive crime.

However, the court below erred in holding that the judgment of the number of crimes between the above crimes is not considered as a single comprehensive crime, but as a multiple crimes in the relation of concurrent crimes.

The judgment of the court below is no longer maintained in this respect.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed under Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without proceeding to decide on the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and the judgment below is reversed, and it is so decided as follows.

Criminal facts

Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable to the facts charged and the summary of evidence recognized by the court as stated in the corresponding column of the judgment below.