The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles) is not true that the Defendant driven the Cir bargaining passenger car (hereinafter “instant automobile”), and the instant automobile is exempt from mandatory insurance because it is a product vehicle.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or affecting the conclusion of judgment.

2. Article 46(2)2 of the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Act provides that a person who operates a motor vehicle not covered by mandatory insurance in violation of the main sentence of Article 8 shall be punished, and Article 8 of the same Act provides that “no person shall operate a motor vehicle on the road which is not covered by mandatory insurance.” Article 2 Subparag. 3 of the same Act provides that “the owner of a motor vehicle” means a person who owns a motor vehicle or a person who has the right to use a motor vehicle and operates a motor vehicle on his/her own behalf.” Thus, the owner of a motor vehicle has a duty to mandatory insurance concerning a motor vehicle operated on the road.

I would like to say.

On the other hand, Article 5(4) of the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Act and Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and Article 5 of the same Act are exempt from mandatory insurance only with respect to “motor vehicles owned by the United Nations forces stationed in the Republic of Korea, motor vehicles owned by the United States Armed Forces stationed in the Republic of Korea, motor vehicles owned by those designated by the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, and towed vehicles manufactured to move land by being towed by those designated by the Minister of Construction and Transportation,” and they are not exempt from mandatory insurance.

According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant acquired the instant vehicle from Aglym Co., Ltd. on February 23, 2012 and completed the registration of transfer, and sold it to F on October 15, 2012, and thereafter on October 19, 2010.