logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 평택지원 2018.07.13 2017고정597
자동차손해배상보장법위반
Text

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a holder of Chived vehicle of Chives.

No person shall operate any motor vehicle which is not covered by mandatory insurance on a road.

Nevertheless, on July 3, 2017, the Defendant operated the foregoing vehicle, which was not covered by mandatory insurance from the street in front of Pyeongtaek-si D to the front road of the same city.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of F;

1. Inquiry into information on non- mandatory insurance policy;

1. Making teas;

1. The photograph (the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the above motor vehicle was parked in the above place at the time of this case, and that it was not operated, but the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, i.e., the control police officer F confirmed in this court that the above motor vehicle of the defendant at the time of this case was not covered by mandatory insurance.

At the time, the defendant was seated in the driver's seat of the above vehicle and was living together with a cell phone.

The parked vehicles are not regulated as to whether they are not mandatory insurance, but they are regulated as to whether they are not mandatory insurance if the driver is on the vehicle, such as this case.

At the time of the discovery of this case, the Defendant stated to the effect that he had been driving the said vehicle from the above place to the above place, and that he had been driving the said vehicle again.

Accordingly, the defendant had the defendant prepare the vehicle operation report, and the defendant prepared the above statement on his own.

“The fact clearly stated to the effect that “”, ② there is no circumstance that F makes a false statement even when she committed a perjury, and ③ the Defendant was aware that it was subject to the mandatory insurance at the time of this case, regardless of whether it was operated.

arrow