For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court affirmed the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant of the violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Damage Compensation Act among the facts charged in the instant case, on the premise of the fact that the Defendant was entitled to use the instant automobile and was an automobile owner who is obligated to subscribe to liability insurance or liability mutual aid as provided by Article 5(1) of the Guarantee of Automobile Damage Compensation Act.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts against logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the Guarantee of Automobile Damage Compensation, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, in light of the provisions of Article 2 subparag. 3, Article 5 subparag. 1, the main text of Article 8, and Article 46 subparag. 2 of the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Act, which provide that the owner of a motor vehicle bears the obligation to subscribe to a specific liability insurance or liability mutual-aid and punish the owner of a motor vehicle who has operated a motor vehicle that has not been covered by mandatory insurance, the ground for appeal on the ground of appeal alone cannot be deemed as unconstitutional in violation of Article 46 subparag. 2 and the main text of Article 8 of the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Act, and thus, the ground for appeal that the above provision is unconstitutional cannot be accepted.

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