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 a holder of BM5 car.

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

Nevertheless, on July 30, 2016, the Defendant operated the said car that was not covered by mandatory insurance by allowing a substitute driver to drive the said car on the street in front of the D hotel located in D's city in the Government of the Gyeonggi-do.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Investigation report (to attach a report on purchase of mandatory insurance);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes for inquiry about unpaid penalty;

1. Relevant Article 46 of the Act concerning facts constituting an offense, and Article 46 (2) 2 and the main sentence of Article 8 of the Guarantee of Compensation for Motor Vehicle Damages, and Selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The defendant asserts that Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order [the defendant has already been paid a fine for negligence in relation to this case, and thus, he cannot be punished as a fine at all times.

However, Article 13(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea is different inasmuch as the criminal punishment against the owner of an automobile who operated an automobile without mandatory insurance under Article 46(2)2 of the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Act and the imposition of fines for negligence against the owner of an automobile who did not purchase mandatory insurance under Article 48(3)1 of the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Act differs from the act of basic facts subject to such punishment or sanction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3792, Apr. 23, 2015). In addition, according to the records, the Defendant appears to have been prosecuted due to the failure to pay a penalty imposed in relation to the violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Compensation Act, which was imposed on the owner of the automobile who operated an automobile without mandatory insurance, and thus, Article 53(1) of the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Insurance Act as to the effect of the disposition cannot be applicable.