자동차손해배상보장법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. Defendant A is the representative of Co., Ltd., and D is the employee of the head of the purchase division of the above Co., Ltd.
C Co., Ltd. is the owner of the vehicle E Co., Ltd., and Defendant A and D are the owner of the above vehicle.
On October 6, 2016, the Defendant violated the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation by operating the said vehicle that was not covered by mandatory insurance on the road along the south-ro crossing in the view of the view of the view of the viewing in light of the D’s duties.
2. The prosecutor charged the defendant, who is the representative director of C, a vehicle owner, with the application of the former part of Article 47 of the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Act (the two punishment provisions). However, there is no provision punishing the representative director of the company in addition to both punishment provisions, and there is no provision punishing the owner of the company. Thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the court below that the defendant is innocent pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act