The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds of appeal is that the Defendant was not a owner of a motor vehicle under the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Act, since the instant motor vehicle was not operated by C or D at the time of its operation.

However, the lower court convicted the Defendant as to the facts charged in the instant case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. The lower court determined: (1) The Defendant provided the property necessary for the operation of the Company as the representative director under the agreement to receive KRW 5 million per month from the Defendant without having invested the funds or in kind in the process of the establishment of the Company D; and (2) G provided the said property.

(2) The Defendant stated that he/she is holding the Defendant’s 24,00 shares (30%) totaling 48,00 shares (60%) totaling 24,00 shares (30%) among the 80,000 shares total issued by D, the Defendant was in charge of managing or supervising meetings of the Defendant’s employees while taking charge of the Defendant’s position as the president of D (in case of investigation record No. 104, No. 104, 2, 75, F, and G’s statutory statement in the lower court), G was mainly in charge of the business,

F. F. F. G. F. F. H., however, is registered as the representative director, and the same applies to the president of the Republic of Korea, and the Defendant was actually operating the corporation as the actual owner.

According to the statement, it was sufficient to recognize that the defendant is the owner of a motor vehicle under Article 2 subparagraph 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Damage Compensation Act.

The term "motor vehicle owner" as provided in the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Act means the owner or the motor vehicle.