Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

1. Violation of the Automobile Management Act;

A. On April 20, 2016, the Defendant acquired the Ecoon vehicle from D before the Defendant’s house located in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City C and 601, and did not apply for the registration of the transfer of the ownership of a motor vehicle without justifiable grounds.

B. On May 22, 2016, around 10:00, the Defendant operated the said vehicle without being entrusted with the operation, etc. of the said vehicle from the Defendant’s house located in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City C and 601 to the 203-ro, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu.

2. On May 22, 2016, the Defendant violated the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Act: (a) operated ECo cars not covered by mandatory insurance from around the Defendant’s house located in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City C and 601 to around 203, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Incheon.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Report on occurrence (Violation, etc. of the Automobile Management Act);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the Motor Vehicle Registration Register;

1. Article 81 subparagraph 2 of the relevant Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, Articles 81 subparagraph 2, 12 (1) of the Automobile Management Act (the point of application for non-registration of ownership transfer), Articles 81 and 7-2, and 24-2 (1) of the Automobile Management Act (the point of operation of a person who is not the user of a motor vehicle), Article 46 (2), the main sentence of Article 8 of the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Act (the point of operation of a motor vehicle without mandatory insurance), and selection of fines, respectively;

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. As to the claim that the Defendant is a motor vehicle user under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant and the defense counsel asserts to the effect that the Defendant constitutes a motor vehicle user under Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Motor Vehicle Management Act, since the Defendant borrowed the instant motor vehicle from D and was entrusted with the operation of the motor vehicle.

Modern, this Court has duly adopted and investigated.