Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 60,000 won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 30,000 won shall be paid.

Punishment of the crime

around August 18:37, 2014, the Defendant driven a C-car in violation of the new subparagraph from the event distance to the front line to the front line to the front line at the Jeonsan-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A D Inspector;

1. Disposition of notice (i.e., management of electronic data);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to reports on scheduled summary judgment of traffic regulation;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal Facts and Articles 156 subparagraph 1 and 5 of the Road Traffic Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

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

1. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The Defendant asserts to the following purport:

The Defendant voluntarily filed a report on the violation by the chief of the police station prior to the notice of the offense and the prior notice of the imposition of a fine. However, during that process, the Defendant failed to hear the explanation on the difference between the fine for negligence and the penalty, the period for payment of the penalty, and the amount equivalent to 20/100 if the Defendant did not pay it within the payment period. Accordingly, the Defendant requested revocation of voluntary report on the following day, but did not accept it unfairly. Accordingly, the Defendant filed an administrative appeal to accept the Defendant’s report of cancellation of report by designating the chief of the police station prior to the Defendant as the respondent. Nevertheless, the chief of the police station demoted the request for a summary judgment, and the Defendant, who is unable to recognize the summary judgment, submitted the request for a summary judgment to the chief of the police station prior to the summary judgment. Accordingly, the instant trial procedure that was conducted based on the summary judgment that the Defendant submitted by the chief of the police station prior to the summary judgment was unlawful. Moreover, even if the Defendant already expressed his intention

2. Determination under the Road Traffic Act.