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 the owner of Lone Star Motor Vehicle B.

On August 6, 2009, at around 06:52, the Defendant operated the foregoing vehicle that was not covered by mandatory insurance on the front side of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the police interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Details of inquiries about the quantity of non-insurance cars;

1. Details of inquiries about mandatory insurance policies;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes for perusal of register of automobiles

1. Article 46(2) and Article 8 of the Act on Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation (wholly amended by Act No. 11369, Feb. 22, 2012); Selection of fines for criminal facts;

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

1. The defendant asserts that the defendant's assertion of the provisional payment order under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (the reason for determining the crime of oil) is that at the time, the defendant provided the automobile of this case as security by borrowing money from the lending company, and that he did not have driven.

On the other hand, the Defendant stated in the police that there was a vehicle vehicle vehicle's deficit in the lending company since the lending company took out a loan from the lending company around 2008 and repaid the debt around 2012, and the lending company copied the vehicle's key as security.

According to the evidence mentioned above, the defendant acquired the instant motor vehicle on June 23, 2004 and sold it to Hakk Co., Ltd. on July 26, 2012, and held the instant motor vehicle as the owner, and operated the instant motor vehicle at the time and place of the ruling, and the fact that the instant motor vehicle was not covered by mandatory insurance at the same time and place of the operation. However, in full view of this, the defendant can be recognized to have operated the instant motor vehicle as the owner of the motor vehicle, and the operation and driving are different from the concept, and the defendant offered the instant motor vehicle as security by borrowing money from the lender.