The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is in violation of the principle of prohibition of double punishment to impose a fine again on the Defendant for operating a vehicle not covered by mandatory insurance, even though the Defendant was subject to a disposition of a fine for negligence on the failure to purchase a mandatory insurance.

2. The criminal punishment against the owner of a motor vehicle who operated a motor vehicle without mandatory insurance under Article 46(2)2 of the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Act and the imposition of fines for negligence against the owner of a motor vehicle who did not purchase mandatory insurance under Article 48(3)1 of the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Act differs from the act as a basic fact subject to such punishment or sanction, and thus, cannot be deemed as a double punishment prohibited under Article 13(1) of the Constitution (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3792, Apr. 23, 2015). Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is groundless.