The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged even though the Defendant merely lent and operated a vehicle as indicated in the lower judgment by the F, one’s own post, and did not know of the circumstances in which the mandatory insurance for the said vehicle was not subscribed, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant (an amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court, based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, found the following circumstances, i.e., the vehicle as indicated in the judgment of the lower court, which was registered as the owner of the Han-gu Kak-ro, Han-gu, the Bank of Korea, and was not covered by mandatory insurance between June 13, 2013 and August 6, 2016, at the time of detection, from June 13, 2013 to August 6, 2016; and ii) the Defendant borrowed the vehicle from the Go-friendly job F around July 25, 2016 as indicated in the lower judgment.

Although asserting that there is no evidence to support this, the F, unlike the above registered name, alleged by the Defendant, is very doubtful about the actual owner of the vehicle as indicated in the original judgment, and ③ even if the Defendant borrowed the vehicle as indicated in the original judgment, as alleged by the Defendant, from F.

In light of the fact that it seems that the defendant did not verify at all the insurance relationship of the vehicle as stated in the judgment of the court below against F, even though it seems that it would have been difficult for the defendant to confirm the insurance relationship with F in preparation for a traffic accident that may occur in the course of the operation of the vehicle, the defendant was aware of the circumstance that at least the vehicle as stated in the judgment of the court below may not be covered by mandatory insurance, but operated the vehicle as stated in the judgment of the court below.

It is reasonable to view it.

Therefore, on the same premise, the facts charged in this case are found guilty.