Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

On September 7, 2016, the Defendant had a female D operate a C-car that is not covered by mandatory insurance from the shooting distance in front of the elementary school in the Saturday, 296-3, which is located in the G-si flood area, 10:50 on September 7, 2016.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspects of D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to mandatory insurance;

1. Relevant Article of the Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, and Article 46 (2) 2 and the main sentence of Article 8 of the Guarantee of Compensation for Damages of Motor Vehicles that choose to be punished;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The portion not guilty under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which is the order of provisional payment;

1. A person who has taken over an automobile registered in the facts charged shall file an application for registration of transfer of the ownership of a motor vehicle with the City/Do Governor within 15 days from the date of acquisition;

Nevertheless, even though the Defendant took over a Clater's car under the pretext of not receiving the Clater's car owned by the petition landscape around March 2016, the Defendant did not file an application for the registration of transfer of the ownership of a motor vehicle until September 10, 2016, even though it was acquired from the said company as a salary.

2. In full view of the contents and purport of Articles 6, 12(1) and (3), and 80 subparag. 2 of the Automobile Management Act, the term “person who has acquired an automobile” under Article 12(3) of the Automobile Management Act means a person who acquires an ownership of an automobile by legal acts, including sale and purchase or donation.

Therefore, even if the obligee is delivered to the obligor, if it is merely a mere delivery of the vehicle owned by the obligee as security of the claim without the agreement on transfer of ownership, or if only the obligee is delegated with the authority to dispose of the vehicle in lieu of the obligee’s claim, such obligee cannot be said to be “the transferee of the vehicle” under Article 12(3) of the Automobile Management Act.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do8503, Jun. 9, 2016) in light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the Defendant’s health unit and the records of this case are examined.