The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the records of the reasoning of appeal, even though the defendant sufficiently recognized that he/she committed a violation of the Automobile Management Act and a violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Act, as stated in the facts charged of this case, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby finding the defendant not guilty.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is a person possessing CM7 passenger vehicles (hereinafter “instant vehicle”).

1) A person who has taken over a registered motor vehicle shall file an application for the registration of transfer of ownership with the Mayor/Do Governor within 15 days from the date of purchase.

Nevertheless, on July 2016, the Defendant purchased the instant vehicle at KRW 3 million from the seat of the passenger trading company located in Pyeongtaek-si, and did not transfer ownership from August 8, 2016 until August 8, 2016.

2) The Defendant did not purchase and own the instant vehicle at the same time and place as provided in the foregoing paragraph (1) and did not subscribe to liability insurance.

As such, no motor vehicle which is not covered by mandatory insurance shall be operated on the road.

Nevertheless, around 00:40 on August 8, 2016, the Defendant operated approximately 20 km from the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Dongjak-gu to the 93-day motor vehicle pumps.

B. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court determined that the Defendant committed a crime as stated in the instant facts charged only by the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor.

The court judged that it was insufficient to recognize the defendant and sentenced the defendant not guilty.

(i) Even if a voluntary accompanying report is made, the Defendant was delivered the instant vehicle from E as a bond security by the nominal owner, in itself.