2. In full view of all the sentencing conditions stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act including the fact that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and the Defendant’s economic situation is difficult, etc., the legislative intent of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act to protect the victim from traffic accidents by forcing a motor vehicle owner to purchase mandatory insurance, the period and frequency of driving the motor vehicle without purchasing mandatory insurance, the balance in sentencing with other cases similar to the instant case, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and criminal records, etc., the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed to be too unreasonable. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[However, in the application of the law of the court below, the "Article 46 (2) 2 and the main text of Article 8 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act" is clear that the "Article 46 (2) and the main text of Article 8 of the former Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (wholly amended by Act No. 9450, Feb. 6, 2009)" is a clerical error in the "Article 25 of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure".