Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a holder of Cranchisa car.

1. On December 7, 2008, the Defendant operated a vehicle that was not covered by mandatory insurance on the road in front of the Gyeonggi-gu Si Gamsan Industrial Complex in Bupyeong-gu, Bupyeong-gu.

2. On December 14, 2008, the Defendant operated the said vehicle that was not covered by mandatory insurance on the road front of the Cheongsung Pyeong-gu Cheongsung Pyeong-gu, Gyeonggi-si.

3. On April 8, 2009, the Defendant operated the said vehicle without mandatory insurance at the entrance of the Cheongcheon-si Repair Village at the Cheongcheon-si, Gyeonggi-gu, Gyeonggi-do.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Inquiry into matters of a mandatory insurance contract;

1. A detailed statement of ledger for non-insurance operations violations;

1. Judgment on the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel as a result of the violation of the Road Traffic Act and the request for penalty imposition

1. The summary of the argument is that the Defendant operated Cranchising car (hereinafter “instant automobile”) at the time and place indicated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment, but was not aware of the fact that the Defendant was not aware of the fact that he was not covered by mandatory insurance, since he was transferred from the chise to the mortgage.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the automobile of this case is registered in the name of D, and the defendant was delivered the automobile of this case from the land owner to the end of October 2009 upon delivery of the automobile of this case from the land owner to the end of August 6, 2009. The automobile of this case was in the state of non-insurance from August 6, 2005 to April 27, 2009, and the defendant did not prosecute the fact that the automobile of this case was operated when necessary while keeping the automobile of this case, but the defendant was not charged with the mandatory insurance even around April 3, 2006 and October 16, 206.