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

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is the owner of Cststuna car, and the owner or possessor of the vehicle may not continue to leave the vehicle on the road or leave it on another person’s land without any justifiable reason, but the Defendant continued to leave the vehicle on the front apartment parking lot located in Macheon-si, Shincheon-si without justifiable grounds, from July 26, 2010 to August 23, 2010.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Witnesses D and E's respective legal statements;

1. The national question and replys to civil petitions;

1. Automobile register;

1. The order for automobile management;

1. Application of statutes on photographs of abandoned vehicles and photographs of motor vehicles;

1. Article 81 Subparag. 8 of the former Automobile Management Act (amended by Act No. 10721, May 24, 201) and Article 26(1)3 of the former Automobile Management Act (amended by Act No. 10721, May 24, 201); the selection of a fine,

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant asserts that, after parking the instant vehicle to repair the instant vehicle, the Defendant did not neglect to identify the repair cost, etc.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the adopted evidence, namely, ① the mandatory insurance period expires on June 23, 2010, immediately before leaving the instant vehicle alone, and the Defendant did not purchase a mandatory insurance, ② the Defendant’s statement made by the employee F of the insurance company, which was in charge of insurance against the Defendant, made a telephone call to the Defendant that the Defendant had already been towed by the vehicle to F, around August 23, 2010, when the instant vehicle was towed by the Defendant, around August 23, 2010 (F stated in this court that the said call date and time of the Defendant was accurate around July 2010), ③ any material that the Defendant reported to the police with respect to the instant vehicle is not verified by the police (around June 23, 2010, the investigative record is a national newspaper and answer), and ④ the Defendant’s civil petition.