logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 여주지원 2017.07.17 2017고정140
자동차손해배상보장법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Although the Defendant is prohibited from operating a motor vehicle that is not covered by mandatory insurance on the road, the Defendant operated a BM7 motor vehicle that is not covered by mandatory insurance from January 17, 2017 to the front road of the registration office of the motor vehicle located in the 190-ro 190, in the inn city, from January 17, 2017 to the front road of the registration office of the motor vehicle from around 09:00.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. A written operating statement and vehicle photograph;

1. A written inquiry about each mandatory insurance;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the investigation report;

1. Relevant Article 46 of the Act concerning facts constituting an offense, and Article 46 (2) 2 and the main sentence of Article 8 of the Guarantee of Compensation for Motor Vehicle Damages, and Selection of fines;

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

1. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the argument was that the Defendant merely operated the instant passenger vehicle by hearing the phrase that he would use BM7 passenger cars (hereinafter “the instant passenger car”) from the land, and did not know the fact that the instant passenger car does not have mandatory insurance.

2. The following circumstances, i.e., ① the Defendant, who was detained on December 27, 2016, listened to the Defendant’s warning to use the instant vehicle while being detained by C, and then used the instant vehicle from that time. It is reasonable to deem that the Defendant, who has the right to use the instant vehicle, is a “motor vehicle owner” under the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do1018, Apr. 23, 2004). ② In the case of a motor vehicle driver, it is general to confirm whether the relevant motor vehicle is insured and its scope, etc. in preparation for any traffic accident that may occur in the course of its operation. The Defendant is transferred the instant vehicle from C, and the insurance relationship is the insurance relationship.

arrow