Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 300,000 won.

If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant operated the said automobile without mandatory insurance on December 9, 2010, without purchasing mandatory insurance on December 11:41, 2010, by driving the said automobile, without purchasing a mandatory insurance policy, and operating it on three occasions, without purchasing a mandatory insurance policy as follows.

On October 28, 2010, 11:5:30 on 28, 2010, 05:30 on 05:12 on 30 October 30, 2010, Hayang-si, Sinyang-si, Sinyang-si, Hocheon-si, Sincheon-si, Seoul, on 201:1:41 on 11:41 on 32, 2010 on 11:41 on 201, 201, the summary of evidence on the salary, bamboo, and racing of the national highways of

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Electronic output output from non-insurance operating vehicles;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning mandatory insurance contracts, one electronic output in the automobile register, and one electronic output in the automobile register;

1. Relevant legal provisions and the main text of Article 46 (2) and Article 8 of the former Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (amended by Act No. 11369, Feb. 22, 2012) concerning criminal facts;

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

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

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant asserts that once he was notified of KRW 70,000 of the fine due to the violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (Seoul District Court Decision 2013 High Court Decision 2013 High Court Decision 2878), the punishment of the Defendant for the crime of this case is against the principle of prohibition of double punishment. However, according to the records, it is obvious that the case of Daegu District Court 2013 High Court Decision 2013 High Court Decision 2878 and the crime of this case are not identical with the basic facts, since the date and

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.