Examining the evidence admitted by the court below after legitimate examination of evidence, the court below can sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant defaulted in paying the amount of 1,350,060 won of license tax and automobile tax imposed by the defendant as a taxpayer for the automobile tax as stated in the judgment of the court below, and in light of the provisions of Article 196-3 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5406 of Aug. 30, 1997; hereinafter the same shall apply) concerning automobile tax, automobile tax is a tax with the nature of property tax imposed on the owner as a taxation requirement, but it is clear that automobile tax is a tax with the nature of property tax imposed on the owner as a taxation requirement, but the issue of whether the automobile is owned under Article 196-2 of the same Act and Article 5 of the Automobile Management Act are determined as a registration on the automobile register. Since the license tax and the registration of a private car are subject to taxation requirements, the defendant's assertion alone does not exempt the obligation to pay automobile tax or license tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Nu6.

Therefore, in this regard, the court below is just in finding the defendant guilty of violating the Local Tax Act in accordance with the above facts of default, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the failure to exhaust all necessary deliberations or finding the facts affecting the conclusion of the judgment in violation of the rules of evidence, and there is no ground to

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)