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

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant was the owner of CA, while the owner of a motor vehicle was prohibited from operating the motor vehicle on the road, which is not covered by the mandatory insurance of the motor vehicle, on May 22, 2009. After the mandatory insurance of the motor vehicle expires, on September 11, 2015, the motor vehicle was operated on the two-way street in front of the E, Seosan D on September 13:11, 2015, on October 21:37, 2015, from the long-term colored ice colored in Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, on October 21, 2015, on February 17:39, 2016.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant (as at the second public trial date);

1. Inquiries into the matters of medical insurance contract, and application of the statutes governing non-insurance operations;

1. Relevant Article 46 (2) 2 and the main sentence of Article 8 of the Guarantee of Automobile Damages and Selection of fines concerning facts constituting an offense, as well as Article 46 (2) 2 of the same Act;

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

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

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order / [Defendant and defense counsel, the Suwon District Court Decision 2016 High Court Decision 12893, March 11, 2016, stated the facts charged in the instant case at the time when a person was punished with a fine of two million won for the operation of the instant vehicle, and the fine shall be imposed in consideration thereof.

Although the prosecution of this case was filed later, it is argued that it is an abuse of public prosecution power.

In this regard, the prosecutor has been remarkably deviating from discretionary power by exercising the right of prosecution arbitrarily to give substantial disadvantages to the defendant.

In the case of view, it can be denied the validity of the indictment due to abuse of the right to institute a public prosecution. Here, a prosecutor's intention to institute a public prosecution is not sufficient simply by negligence in the course of performing his duties, but at least by negligence (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do577, Dec. 10, 199, etc.). Even according to the record, the record is based on the previous criminal facts.