교통사고처리특례법위반(치상)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for six months.
except that, for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts (the violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act) does not constitute an “motor vehicle owner” under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act.
Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.
B. The lower court’s imprisonment (six months of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts
A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant, as a holder of B Eth Freight, is prohibited from operating a motor vehicle on the road that is not covered by mandatory insurance. However, the owner of the motor vehicle, on May 31, 2018, operated the said cargo vehicle not covered by mandatory insurance in the section of about 10 km from May 31, 2018 to the front day of the 10km road located in the same Gu-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong.
B. Determination 1) Article 46(2)2 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act provides that the term “motor vehicle owner who operates a motor vehicle which is not covered by mandatory insurance in violation of the main sentence of Article 8 shall be punished,” thereby limiting the subject of punishment to “motor vehicle owner.” Meanwhile, Article 2 subparag. 3 of the same Act provides that “motor vehicle owner means the owner of a motor vehicle or a person who is entitled to use a motor vehicle for himself/herself” and includes not only a registered owner of a motor vehicle but also a person who is entitled to use a motor vehicle for lease, loan for use, or any other purpose and is in the position of a responsible owner who controls the operation of the relevant motor vehicle and is able to benefit therefrom (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do1018, Apr. 23, 2004).”