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

[2015 Gaz. 285] The Defendant is the right holder of BKazack Kaz.

Although the owner of a motor vehicle is prohibited from operating a motor vehicle on the road which is not covered by mandatory insurance, the defendant operated the motor vehicle on the road which is not covered by mandatory insurance three times as follows.

On September 30, 2011, around 13:36, Daejeon-On-Road 149.8 km on the upper-down of the expressway 149.8km

(b) Roads, around 12:04 on November 1, 201, in front of the Daejeon Seosung-dong KT Research Center;

C. Summary of the evidence of the road on November 16, 201, at around 19:58, 19:55, and at around 5:58, 201

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to report the place of crime and investigation results, inquiry of non-insurance operation vehicles, inquiry of mandatory insurance contract matters, and inspection of the register of automobiles;

1. Relevant Article 46 (2) 2 and Article 8 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and the choice of fines for each type of crime and each type of punishment;

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

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

1. Part concerning the dismissal of prosecution under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act;

1. The facts charged [2015cc. 286] The Defendant is the nominal owner of BKazack6.

No automobile which is not covered by mandatory insurance shall be operated on a road.

Nevertheless, on November 16, 201, the Defendant operated the said motor vehicle at the upper-speed line of 149.8 km of the Daejeon Sung-dong KT Research Center on November 1, 201, the front day of the Daejeon Sung-dong KT Research Center on November 1, 201, and on September 30, 201, on September 30, 201.

2. According to the records of the instant case, the facts charged in the instant case are the same as the facts charged in the instant case.

If so, the prosecution of the 2015 High Court 286 case is illegal as a double prosecution, and the prosecution should be dismissed in accordance with Article 327 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

However, the Criminal Procedure Act which made a judgment of dismissal of prosecution against double prosecution.