Acquittal of the accused shall be acquitted.

1. No motor vehicle which is not covered by mandatory insurance of the facts charged in this case shall be operated on a road;

At around 08:50 on September 8, 2010, the Defendant operated 'B' Obaba, which was not covered by mandatory insurance, in front of the 2nd apartment in the Yaegdong-gu, Gwangju Metropolitan City.

2. The head of a Si/Gun/Gu, who operates an automobile not covered by mandatory insurance, in violation of the main sentence of Article 46 (2) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (Penal Provisions).

No motor vehicle which is not covered by mandatory insurance under Article 8 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act shall be operated on a road.

Provided, That motor vehicles prescribed by Presidential Decree pursuant to Article 5 (4) may be operated.

a penalty may be notified to an offender in violation of the section of this section.

(Article 51 (1) of the same Act). Accordingly, a person who has paid a penalty shall not be punished again for the same offense.

(Article 53(1) of the same Act. In such a case, it is reasonable to interpret Article 53(1) of the same Act as “a purport recognizing the effect corresponding to the final and conclusive judgment of payment of penalty”

(2) According to the evidence duly examined, the Defendant received a notification disposition of KRW 100,000,000 as a penalty due to a violation of Article 46(2) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, as stated in the facts charged, as well as the fact that the Defendant received a notification disposition of KRW 100,000,000 due to a violation of Article 46(2) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and the fact that the Defendant paid the penalty on August 28, 20

According to the above facts, the Defendant who has paid a penalty on the same notification disposition as the facts charged does not be punished again pursuant to Article 53(1) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act.

3. In conclusion, this case is based on the time of final and conclusive judgment, and thus, pursuant to Article 326 subparag. 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act.