logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 의성지원 2015.04.30 2015고정19
자동차손해배상보장법위반
Text

Acquittal of the accused shall be acquitted.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is a holder of BNF passenger car.

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

Nevertheless, at around 00:37 September 21, 2009, the Defendant operated the said car without mandatory insurance at the point of 110.2 km in Busan, Jin-si Busan, Busan, Busan, at the Busan, at the Busan, at a point of time.

2. Determination:

A. According to the records of this case, on July 29, 2014, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 500,000 as a fine for the following criminal facts from a violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (No. 2014 high-ranking414 of this Court), and such summary order is the same.

9. 24. Recognizing the established facts.

The defendant is a holder of BNF car. No person shall operate a motor vehicle on the road, which is not covered by mandatory insurance. Nevertheless, on September 21, 2009, the defendant operated the said motor vehicle at the intersection prior to the Cheongsung Dong-gun's Cheongsung-gun's Cheongsung-gun's Cheongsung-gun's Cheongsung-gun's Cheongsung-gun's Cheongsung-gun's Cheongsung-gun.

(b) The term "owner of an automobile" as provided in the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act means the owner of an automobile or a person entitled to use an automobile, who operates an automobile for himself/herself (Article 2 subparagraph 3 of the same Act), and "operation" means the use or management of an automobile according to its usage, regardless of whether it carries persons or goods;

(Article 2(2) of the Road Traffic Act is interpreted differently from the concept of "driving" under the Road Traffic Act.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da9294, May 28, 2009). Meanwhile, in cases where a number of acts or acts falling under the same name of a crime continues to be conducted for a certain period under the single and continuous criminal intent and where the legal benefits are the same, each act should be punished by a single comprehensive crime.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do14135 Decided March 29, 2012, etc.). C.

The records of this case are examined.

arrow