The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The request for adjudication on the constitutionality of the instant case shall be dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles: (a) the Defendant was not informed of the fact that the insurance contract was terminated by an insurance company, etc.; (b) the vehicle driven as stated in the original judgment (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) is not a vehicle continuously managed and used; and (c) even if the period of the said vehicle’s insurance contract was one year, ordinary people were aware that the Defendant, who suffered from mental disease, was aware of the expiration of its insurance contract before being served with the notice of maturity notice; and (d) the Defendant, who was suffering from the said vehicle’s insurance contract, was aware of the expiration of its insurance contract period.

4. A mere payment of a fine for negligence on the vehicle is not possible.

on the expiration date of the insurance contract by the defendant

It is difficult to see, and 5 the Defendant purchased mandatory insurance for the vehicle immediately after the police was controlled.

As such, the Defendant did not know that the insurance maturity of the instant vehicle was expired at the time of committing the instant crime, and thus, the Defendant was intentional in violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Act.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant had mental and physical weakness, such as depression and uneasiness.

2. Determination

A. 1) In a case where a criminal defendant denies the criminal intent, the facts constituting a subjective element of the crime have to be proven by means of proving indirect or circumstantial facts having considerable relevance with the criminal intent due to the nature of the object, and in this context, what constitutes indirect or circumstantial facts having considerable relevance to the criminal intent is based on normal empirical rule.