A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal power] On September 20, 2019, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year on September 28, 2019 to the charge of violating the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act in the public order branch of the Daejeon District Court.

【Criminal Facts】

1. A person who violates the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (Bodily Injury) and the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter “Road Traffic Act”) and the accused are those engaged in driving the BM3

On September 1, 2019, the Defendant driven the above vehicle at a speed of 14:20, while driving the vehicle, and driving the four-lane road in front of the D in Daejeon Seo-gu C at a speed of the U.S. in the direction of the 3rd parallel in the direction of the 3rd parallel.

At the same time, the above road has a large volume of traffic of other vehicles, and there are signals installed at the front section, so in such a case, there was a duty of care to reduce the speed to those engaged in driving service and to prevent accidents by taking the same attitude of other vehicles in the signal lights and the front section.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and failed to accurately operate the brakes of the vehicle, and waited for the signal at the same lane located on the same lane, and received the part behind the FMW vehicle driven by the victim E (59 years old) who was stopped, as the front part of the vehicle of the Defendant.

As a result, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim, such as salt, tension, etc. of the bones of wood, which requires medical treatment for about three weeks, due to such occupational negligence, and at the same time damaged the above BMW vehicle owned by the victim to cover KRW 3,127,135, such as expenses for exchange of pans, etc.

2. No owner of any motor vehicle violating the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act shall operate any motor vehicle on a road which is not covered by mandatory insurance;

Nevertheless, the Defendant operated BM3 vehicles owned by the Defendant, which was not covered by mandatory insurance at the time and place specified in Paragraph 1.

Summary of Evidence

1..