1. As to the allegation of the grounds of appeal that violates the principle of non-existence of the day-to-day doctrine, the charge of violating the Guarantee of Automobile Damage from the facts charged in the instant case is as follows.

8. By the end of 16.0, 16. The phrase “accuss vehicle was operated on R which was not covered by mandatory insurance through a total of eight occasions.”

The ground of appeal is that there is a charge of theft of another person's property using the foregoing vehicle in the past, and it is against the principle of absence of one-time objection to punish another person as a violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Damage by reason that the above vehicle was operated without mandatory insurance.

According to the records, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for larceny, etc. from the Busan District Court (No. 2013No. 1424) on September 27, 2013, and the judgment became final and conclusive on October 5, 2013. However, the crime is that the defendant stolen another person's property on August 16, 2012, and the defendant was not punished for the part on the operation of the above vehicle.

Therefore, it was found that the defendant was convicted of larceny.

On the other hand, punishing a person in violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Damage in this case cannot be deemed as violating the principle of double punishment or absence of death. Therefore, the ground of appeal on the ground of appeal is without merit.

2. According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in the case where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is permitted. As such, the argument that the Defendant’s punishment is unfair because the Defendant’s punishment is too minor is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

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