All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Defendant’s appeal, the Defendant did not submit a statement of reason for appeal within the submission period of the written reason for appeal, and the notice of appeal does not indicate the reason.

2. As to the reasons for the prosecutor’s appeal, Article 46(2)2 of the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Act punishs “the owner of an automobile which operated an automobile not covered by mandatory insurance in violation of the main sentence of Article 8,” and under Article 2 subparag. 3 of the same Act, “the owner of an automobile” means the owner of an automobile or a person entitled to use an automobile, who operates the automobile for himself/herself.

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court reversed the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant of the violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Damage Compensation Act among the facts charged of this case, and acquitted the Defendant.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned conclusion is justifiable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “automobile holders” under Article 46(2)2 of the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.