자동차손해배상보장법위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The fact that the Defendant, by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, purchased an insurance policy for each passenger car at F and H as indicated in the lower judgment (hereinafter “each passenger car at issue”) and lent without compensation to F and H on the condition that he would operate it.
However, F and H did not abide by the Defendant’s promise, and had a third party who was unaware of the Defendant operate each of the automobiles of this case, even if they did so, they exceeded each of the automobiles of this case.
F and H’s net transfer of each of the instant automobiles to a third party is not a motor vehicle owner under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act due to the loss of operating control or operating benefits for each of the instant automobiles.
Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which found the Defendant as a motor vehicle owner for each of the automobiles of this case and thereby convicted the Defendant of the facts charged.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles
A. The summary of the facts charged is a person who was the representative director of C, and registered in the name of the said corporation as a holder of D and E sportss’ automobiles.
No owner of an automobile shall operate any automobile on the road which is not covered by mandatory insurance.
Nevertheless, on April 12, 2009, the Defendant appears to be a clerical error in the indictment on April 2, 2009, when the Defendant lent to F a car of this D-Wz, and thus, again borrowed money from F. The Defendant appears to be a clerical error.
From 17:06 to 338.6 km Seoul, the Gyeongdo Highway, which was located in the Hansung-dong, was allowed to drive the said DWz car without mandatory insurance at the point of 338.6 km.
Accordingly, the Defendant, including operating the said DWts’ car on the road, was attached 15 times from that time until January 29, 201.