The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (an amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, the Prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment with respect to “Article 46(2)2 of the Guarantee of Automobile Damage Compensation” in the previous applicable law, “Article 46(2) of the former Guarantee of Automobile Damage Compensation Act (amended by Act No. 11369, Feb. 22, 2012).” The subject of the judgment was changed by this court’s permission.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

The summary of the evidence and criminal facts against the defendant recognized by the court and the summary of the evidence are as stated in the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning facts constituting an offense and Articles 46(2) and 8 of the former Guarantee of Automobile Compensation (amended by Act No. 11369, Feb. 22, 2012)

1. The aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (the aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes stipulated in the offense of violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation by the person on March 8, 201, with heavier penalty);

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

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is that the defendant repents the wrong and reflects the wrong.

However, it is not good that the traffic accident victim's act of operating a motor vehicle not covered by mandatory insurance causes the risk of not receiving proper compensation.

. These points;