The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding the facts) is as follows: (a) the Defendant operated a car without knowing the fact that the car was not covered by mandatory insurance; and (b) there was no intention of violating the Guarantee of Automobile Damage Compensation Act.

2. In light of the fact that the Defendant provided a car as security and directly operated the car as stated in the judgment below, the Defendant is the owner of the said car.

The owner of a motor vehicle shall voluntarily subscribe to mandatory insurance (Article 5(1) of the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Act), and shall not operate a motor vehicle which is not covered by mandatory insurance (main sentence of Article 8 of the same Act) on the road (the main sentence 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 crime of violating his/her duty is established, and the crime of punishing the violation of his/her duty is established, and the fact that he/she was expected to be aware of the fact that he/she

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is groundless.