All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine (as to the guilty portion), the Defendant did not know that the instant vehicle was not covered by mandatory insurance, and in light of the status of operation and management of the instant vehicle, the Defendant cannot be deemed as the owner of the instant vehicle under Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Act.

In addition, the defendant cannot be found guilty only with the protocol of interrogation of suspect against the defendant.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion

2) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 3 million) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant operated the instant vehicle even though he was not entrusted with the operation of the vehicle by the owner of the vehicle.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts of not guilty of this part of the facts charged and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Article 46(2)2 of the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Act provides for the punishment of “the owner of an automobile who operates an automobile not covered by mandatory insurance” as to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine. Article 2 subparag. 3 of the said Act refers to the owner of the automobile or a person who has the right to use the automobile and operates the automobile for his/her own sake.

“A person, as well as the nominal owner of a motor vehicle, who has title to the use of a motor vehicle for lease, loan of use, or other self-reliance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do1018, Apr. 23, 2004), is operating the relevant motor vehicle in light of social norms.