1. The defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won;

2. If the defendant does not pay the above fine, fifty thousand won.

Punishment of the crime

No automobile which is not covered by mandatory insurance shall be operated on a road.

Nevertheless, at around 20:50 on May 31, 2013, the Defendant operated a 100-cc occ occ operated from the front side of the mutual influenite-si, Jindong-si, Jindong-si to the same distance from approximately 100 meters away from the mandatory insurance to the same distance.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of each of the police statements protocol laws to C

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning facts constituting an offense, and the main sentence of Article 46 (2) 2 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act and the main sentence of Article 8 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act;

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

3. The portion not guilty under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order

1. The summary of the facts charged is around 20:50 on May 31, 2013, the Defendant driven a 100-meter distance of approximately 100 meters from the license plate No. 100-c. Obababab on the front of the same road on the margal beauty room located in the Gi-gu, Kimhae-si, Jin-si, Kim Young-gu, Gi-si, Kim Young-si, while under the influence of alcohol content of 0.264%.

2. Determination

A. The facts constituting an offense prosecuted in a criminal trial must be proven by the prosecutor, and the judge should be found guilty with evidence having probative value, which leads to the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it is inevitable to determine it with the benefit of the defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Do767 delivered on April 15, 2005, etc.). B.

In full view of the following circumstances admitted by the record, it is insufficient to view that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was proven without reasonable doubt that the Defendant was in the blood alcohol concentration of 0.264% at the time of driving the above Oral Sea, and otherwise recognized.