We reverse the judgment of the first instance court.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, mistake of the facts, or misapprehension of the legal principle) is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant was guilty of the seven-times No. 7 (one-times No. 1 through No. 6 and No. 8 (one-time operation on December 1, 2010) in the judgment of the court of first instance on the following grounds: (a) although the Defendant, as the owner of Cchip X-gu Motor Vehicle (hereinafter “the instant vehicle”), was guilty of having operated the instant vehicle that was not covered by mandatory insurance (hereinafter “the facts charged in the part of acquittal”), the judgment of the court of first instance was erroneous, or erred by misapprehending the legal principle on “the owner of a motor vehicle that operated a motor vehicle under the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Act,” thereby acquitted the Defendant.

2. Determination:

A. According to Article 46(2) of the former Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Act (amended by Act No. 11369, Feb. 22, 2012), a person who has operated an automobile not covered by mandatory insurance in violation of the main sentence of Article 8 of the Act shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than one year or by a fine not exceeding ten million won.

Since Article 46 (2) of the Act provides that "the owner of a motor vehicle is "the owner of the motor vehicle" and "the owner of the motor vehicle" in Article 2 subparagraph 3 of the Act refers to the owner of the motor vehicle or a person entitled to the use of the motor vehicle, who operates the motor vehicle for himself/herself.

“A person who has the right to use an automobile” here is interpreted as including all those who have the right to use an automobile for lease, loan of use, and other person who has the right to use an automobile (Supreme Court Decision 2004Do1018 Decided April 23, 2004). B. We examine the instant case in accordance with such legal principles.

In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the first instance court, the Defendant is for himself with the consent or implied consent of the instant vehicle owner D.