Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

A. On August 30, 2016, the Defendant violated the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving) driving a private-wheeled Baba, the section of which is about 5km from the Do in front of the agency of the Daecheon-si, Taecheon-si, U.S. to the road located in 210 U.S. Do in the same Do as the agency, with approximately 0.167% alcohol concentration in blood, and the Defendant was driving a private-wheeled Mababa, the area of which is about 0.167% not registered as drinking while drinking.

B. The Defendant in violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Damage Compensation Act is a person who has an objection to an unregistered master’s right.

No person shall operate any motor vehicle which has not been covered by mandatory insurance.

Nevertheless, the defendant did not subscribe to mandatory insurance, such as the above Paragraph A, and operated the above Ba-Ba as described in Paragraph A.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A report on the occurrence of a traffic accident and an investigation report on the actual condition of a traffic accident;

1. Statement report on the situation of a driver in charge of driving and notification of the result of regulating drinking driving;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes for investigation reporting;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning facts constituting an offense, Articles 148-2 (2) 2 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act (the point of drinking), Article 46 (2) 2 and the main sentence of Article 8 of the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Act (the point of operating vehicles which are not mandatory insurance), and selection of fines, respectively;

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

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

1. The Defendant’s assertion on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act asserts to the effect that there was no intention on the operation of a vehicle which is not mandatory insurance, on the ground that the Defendant did not buy an insurance policy, and did not buy an insurance policy.

According to the evidence, the defendant's vehicle does not constitute "motor vehicle which does not have the obligation to subscribe to insurance, etc." under Article 5 (4) of the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Act and Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and thus, he/she purchased insurance, and the defendant made every effort to avoid illegality of the act.

c. the records.