The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 1.5 million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the seller of the instant motor vehicle has bought mandatory insurance to the Defendant.

Since the defendant believed and operated this, the defendant did not have any intention to commit a violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant for an ex officio judgment.

According to the records, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Narcotics Control Act (fence) at the Daegu District Court on March 9, 2017 and on August 26, 2017, and the judgment became final and conclusive on August 26, 2017. As such, the crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (fence) and the crime of this case, which became final and conclusive, are in the concurrent relation of a group after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and should be sentenced to punishment after considering the equity and the mitigation or exemption of punishment pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, in the case of a trial, the prosecutor applied the provision of the law to add "Article 37 of the Criminal Code" to "Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Code," and the court permitted this.

In this respect, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to deliberation, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority.

B. The owner of a motor vehicle shall voluntarily purchase mandatory insurance (Article 5(1) of the Guarantee of Automobile Damage Compensation Act), and operate a motor vehicle not covered by mandatory insurance on the road (main text of Article 8 of the same Act). Therefore, as long as the defendant operated a motor vehicle without mandatory insurance even though he/she was a motor vehicle owner, the above crime of punishing the breach of duty is established, and the vehicle involved in the accident of this case is automatically covered by mandatory insurance.