2. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant: (a) he was aware that D Co., Ltd. (formerly changed: E) paid the insurance premium at the time of the operation of the C Motor Vehicle (hereinafter “instant Motor Vehicle”) along with the facts charged; and (b) was operating a motor vehicle without knowledge of the status of the mandatory insurance.

3. Determination

A. The witness F made a legal statement to the effect that he was aware of the fact that the Defendant had not subscribed to the mandatory insurance of this case, stating that “the Defendant was asked from the Defendant to subscribe to the automobile insurance because the instant automobile was not covered by the mandatory insurance on July 2008.” However, the following circumstances, which are, the time when the mandatory insurance contract was acknowledged by inquiry into the history of the mandatory insurance contract, are as follows: as of September 25, 2008, when the Plaintiff again purchased the mandatory insurance of this case from July 2008, that the F was asked to subscribe to the mandatory insurance of this case by the Defendant, and the witness stated that it was about 2 months or more from July 2008. In light of the fact that the witness F stated that it was about 4 years or more before this court, it is difficult to believe at least the above time of request from the Defendant among the above statements by the witness F.

B. In addition, the following circumstances recognized by the witness F’s legal statement, etc., i.e., ① the Defendant did not change the name of the Defendant even after the mandatory insurance of the instant automobile was due on October 2, 2007, and the instant automobile did not receive construction payment from D Co., Ltd.