No automobile which is not covered by mandatory insurance shall be operated on a road.

Nevertheless, at around 16:30 on January 25, 2014, the Defendant operated the above Obaba, which was not covered by mandatory insurance on the pre-fluoral post office located in Gyeyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu.

Judgment

The subject of the crime of violating Article 46(2)2 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act is an owner of an automobile. Article 2 subparag. 3 of the same Act provides that “The owner of an automobile” or a person entitled to use an automobile, who operates an automobile for himself/herself.”

Here, “the person who operates a motor vehicle for his own sake” refers to the person who is in the position of the responsible body to control the operation of the motor vehicle and to enjoy the benefit therefrom. Thus, even if the owner of the motor vehicle gratuitously lends the motor vehicle to a person who is closely in a personal relationship, such as his/her relative, barring any special circumstance, he/she is still in the owner of the motor vehicle, and it cannot be deemed “the person who operates the motor vehicle for his/her own sake” under the above law merely because he/she used the motor vehicle.

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da3918 delivered on May 10, 191, etc.). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the owner of the instant Obane is C of the Defendant, and the Defendant is not living with C, the Defendant is not living with C, and the Defendant only has borrowed Obane several times upon request from C, and the Defendant only has borrowed Obane on several occasions. The fact that the Obane in the instant case was managed by C, and even on the date stated in the facts charged, the Defendant received the key upon request from C, and was recognized as having temporarily lent Obane.

In light of these circumstances, the prosecutor submitted.