The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The gist of the grounds for appeal asserted that the Defendant had already been subject to criminal punishment for the same criminal facts as the instant case on the first trial date, but it cannot be deemed a legitimate ground for appeal due to the assertion that was filed after the lapse of the period for appeal not timely filed.

Even if ex officio review is conducted, there is one driving act for each driving day on the basis of the date of driving under social norms except in special cases, such as continuous driving in the same opportunity beginning on any day and ending on the next day, in the case of a violation of the Road Traffic Act due to driving without a license.

Since it is reasonable to view each driving day as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act due to unauthorized driving, it shall be deemed that the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act is established due to driving day, and even if the act of unauthorized driving has been repeated on several days with intent to continuously drive without a license, it shall not be deemed a single crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do6281, Jul. 23, 2002). Such a legal principle shall also apply to the act of driving without a mandatory insurance.

In full view of the facts charged by the Defendant in the Suwon District Court 2018No 1582 sentenced to imprisonment with labor for October, 201, the facts constituting the crime of the instant case are as follows: (a) “Operation of a bexton car not covered by mandatory insurance in the Yang-si Yang-si of Gyeonggi on December 4, 2016; and (b) the facts charged in the instant case are as follows: “Operation of the said car at the subordinate city of December 5, 2016; (c) the date and place of driving; and (d) the date and place of driving the vehicle; and (d) the Defendant was exposed to the police by drinking on December 4, 2016 when driving the vehicle at around 21:46, it is reasonable to deem each of the above acts as separate crimes.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

The sentence of the lower court against the Defendant (3 million won) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of trial-oriented and direct care, the sentencing judgment is also made.