The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal stated that the Defendant was in the position of the owner of the instant vehicle since the Defendant was operated by leasing the instant vehicle from D under the intent to operate the instant vehicle entirely. The instant automobile was revoked on September 16, 2009, and was not covered by mandatory insurance at the time of the instant crime, and D also stated that the mandatory insurance payment receipt, which was kept in the instant vehicle, was related to the other vehicle, was related to the other vehicle. In light of the fact that the Defendant did not confirm at least the fact that the vehicle was registered and mandatory insurance, and that the operator of the instant vehicle did not do so, the Defendant did not have any negligence on the fact that the vehicle was not covered by mandatory insurance.

Nevertheless, the court below judged that the defendant cannot be deemed to have committed a crime of this case as a motor vehicle owner, and sentenced the defendant not guilty, and there is an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. Summary of the facts charged in the instant case 1) The Defendant violated the Automobile Management Act: (a) around 22:40 on September 29, 2012, the Defendant: (b) was revoked on September 16, 2009 on the street in front of the blue-dong in the Nowon-gu, Sejong-si; and (c) CM5 car (hereinafter “instant car”).

(2) On September 29, 2012, the Defendant violated the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, as the owner of a motor vehicle, operated the instant motor vehicle that was not covered by mandatory insurance on the street front of the front of the Cheongsong-dong in the Nowon-gu, Young-si.

B. The crime of violating Article 80 subparagraph 1 of the Automobile Management Act, which is related to the judgment of the court below, is established in the case of driving an automobile with knowledge that it was not registered in the register of automobiles.

In addition, the subject of the violation of Article 46 (2) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act is "motor vehicle owner", while the "motor vehicle owner" is "motor vehicle owner" in Article 2 (3) of the same Act.