beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In light of the legal principles as seen in the Defendant, even if a person temporarily borrows a vehicle from a person who is not a security right of a vehicle, as seen in the instant case, it shall be deemed as falling under the “automobile owner” under the Automobile Compensation Guarantee Act that is obligated to subscribe to mandatory insurance. Therefore, the charges of violating the Automobile Compensation Guarantee Act are found guilty.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the judgment.
B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (1.5 million won in penalty) is too unhued and unfair.
2. Determination
A. We examine the argument of misapprehension of the legal doctrine. The subject of the crime of violation of Article 46(2)2 of the Guarantee of Automobile Damage Compensation Act is “owner of a motor vehicle.” Article 2 subparag. 3 of the same Act provides that “the owner of a motor vehicle or a person who has the right to use a motor vehicle, who is an owner of a motor vehicle or a person who operates a motor vehicle for himself/herself.”
The term "person who operates an automobile for his own sake" refers to a person who is in the position of the responsible body to control the operation of an automobile and to enjoy the benefit therefrom. Thus, even if the owner of an automobile gratuitously lends the automobile to a person who is closely related to his/her relative, barring any special circumstance, the operation control or operation benefit for the automobile still exists in the owner of the automobile, and the mere fact that he/she borrowed the automobile used it, it cannot be viewed as "the person who operates the automobile for his/her own sake" under the above law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da3918, May 10, 191). The court below held that the automobile of this case is registered as G on the Automobile Registration Register as the owner of the automobile, G borrowed money from the lending company, and offered the automobile as a security, and the defendant.