Citizen Myshkin, driving a VAZ-2110 car registered for his spouse, was stopped by a traffic police officer to verify documents, during which it became clear that Myshkin had no right to drive a vehicle. The traffic police officer has compiled three protocols on administrative offenses provided for by Part 1 of Article 12.3 of the Administrative Code in connection with the absence of a power of attorney to drive a vehicle, Part 1 of Article 12.7 of the Administrative Code in connection with the absence of rights to drive a vehicle, Part 1 of Article 12.37 CAO due to the fact that the car was driven by a driver who was not included in the insurance policy.
Having reviewed the three protocols, the deputy head of the traffic police found Myshkin guilty of administrative offenses under Part 1 of Article 12.3, Part 1 of Article 12.7, Part 1 of Article 12.37 of the Administrative Code, and imposed administrative punishment on him with Part 2 of Article 4.4 of the Administrative Code in the form of an administrative fine in the amount of 10 minimum wages.
Myshkin appealed to the district court against the decision of the deputy head of the traffic police to impose an administrative fine, stating that he had not committed three different administrative offenses.
Give a legal analysis of the case. Determine what signs of an administrative offense are present in the actions of Myshkin. What decision should make the court?

After payment you will be available a link to the solution of this problem in the file of MS Word. It should be noted that the problem solutions put up for sale were successfully handed over in the period 2004-2019 and could be outdated. However, the general algorithm will always remain true.