Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the amount of KRW 100,000 shall be paid.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant owned a BM5 vehicle without a driver’s license, and operated the said vehicle without mandatory insurance on December 28, 2017, which was not covered by the mandatory insurance on the front road at Kimhae-si around 14:25, 2017.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Inquiry into mandatory insurance and application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the ledger of driver's licenses;

1. Relevant Article of the Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, subparagraph 1 of Article 152 of the Road Traffic Act and Article 43 of the same Act, Article 46 (2) 2 and Article 8 of the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Act, and fines;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. On February 22, 2018, the Defendant: (a) at the office of the transportation investigation team in the police station in the Gwanak-gu, Kim Jong-dong, Kim Jong-dong, Kim Jong-dong, the Defendant: (b) received a notice of penalty payment for the reasons as stated in its reasoning; (c) prepared “D”, “E”, and “D” in the resident registration number column; (d) signed the private document on the proof of fact; (c) forged one copy of the report of specific type in the name of D, which is a private document related to the proof of fact; and (d) issued the above forged report to the assistant F of the above Kim Jong-dong Police Station in the Seoul-do, Kim Jong-dong, the Defendant used it.

Judgment

The prosecutor, after gathering another person's signature from a part of the report of self-fashion of a crime, requested the police officer to rate the act of forging a private document and the act of returning another person's signature to the police officer as a private document.

Then, the Defendant’s act of taking another’s signature in part of the report is not a crime of forging a private document or a crime of gambling documents (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4478, Dec. 23, 2005). Thus, the above facts charged constitute an offense.