Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. On March 21, 2014, at around 19:57, the Defendant driven a non-registered diab, under the influence of alcohol alcohol content 0.184%, a section of approximately 300 meters from the non-fluoral bank in the dong-gu Gwangju to the 537-1st street of the same 537-1.

2. The Defendant is a person who actually owns CT100 Oral Ba.

From January 2014, the Defendant did not subscribe to the Oral Ba liability insurance until now.

As such, no one may operate a road on which the mandatory insurance is not covered.

Nevertheless, from the early January 2014, the Defendant operated the above Obane at the distance of the French land lower than Gwangju.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement on the circumstances of the driver, report on the detection of the driver, and report on the driver;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of investigation report (the content that it is impossible to inquire into whether or not to purchase an insurance after the registration was made without registration on the part of the case);

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning facts constituting an offense, Articles 148-2 (2) 2 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of punishment, and the selection of fines, respectively;

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

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. In light of the reasoning for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, not only the Defendant not only driven an erroneous boom on which mandatory insurance was not subscribed, but also the Defendant’s drinking level is considerably high by 0.184% in relation to driving under the influence of alcohol in this case, it is necessary to strictly punish the Defendant.

However, the defendant's mistake is divided and reflected, and the defendant is a crime of drinking driving or violating the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act.