Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the owner of the horse B vehicle.

On September 18, 2019, the Defendant, at around 19:19, operated the car volume of the horse bill owned by the Defendant, without inserting a valid card that can be settled on the cargo terminal installed on the said vehicle, failed to pay KRW 2,800,00 of tolls by passing through the cargo terminal of the Seoul Metropolitan Office without permission, as well as unpaid KRW 609,50,00 of tolls by passing the cargo box without permission for a total of 193 times, as shown in the list of crimes (attached Form).

Accordingly, the defendant did not pay the price by illegal means, and acquired property benefits by using paid automation equipment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. The facilities for convenience in sight table and illegal use (B) of toll water requested to habitually unpaid vehicles;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning comprehensive shop taxes to vehicles;

1. Article 348-2 of the Criminal Act applicable to criminal facts and Article 348-2 of the choice of punishment (a comprehensive and continuous criminal act falling under the name of the same crime shall be committed for a certain period under the single and continuous criminal intent, and where the legal benefits from such damage are the same, each of the acts shall be punished as a single comprehensive crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Do417, Apr. 23, 1996). The court recognizes the criminal facts charged as a substantive concurrent criminal, while the court recognizes the criminal facts as they are. However, even if the legal evaluation on the number of crimes is different, it does not affect the defense of the defendant, and thus, it does not affect the defense of the defendant, and thus, the court may be punished as a single comprehensive crime without any changes in the indictment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Do546, Jul. 21, 1987). A prosecutor shall regard each of the acts of using convenience facilities of this case as applicable provisions in Articles 37 and 38 of the Criminal Act.