The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,300,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the evidence submitted by the mistake of facts-finding prosecutor, the Defendant is fully aware that the instant car was not covered by mandatory insurance.

Of the facts charged in this case, the court below acquitted the Defendant on the violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (1.2 million won of a fine) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. The Defendant led to the confession of the mistake of facts as to the violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act by the court of the first instance that the automobile B was operated with knowledge of the fact that the automobile B was not covered by mandatory insurance.

In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below in the confession made by the defendant in the court of the trial, the defendant can fully recognize that he operated the automobile B with knowledge of the fact that the automobile B was not covered by mandatory insurance.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's assertion of misconception of facts regarding the violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act among the facts charged in the instant case is with merit, and this part of the facts charged is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one sentence should be imposed pursuant to Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment

The judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, without proceeding to the prosecutor's decision on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the following decision is again rendered.

Criminal facts

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a e-cub vehicle B.

1. On November 9, 2012, the Defendant driven the said car on the 19:15th day of November, 2012, and led to the way from the direction of the baseline to the fero-driving line.