The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal: misunderstanding of legal principles

A. Legal principles (as to the violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act), the Defendant, while voluntarily taking over the instant vehicle from G, was in a situation where the instant vehicle can be used at any time, and operated the instant vehicle to see personal usage. It constitutes a “owner of an automobile” under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that it does not constitute a motor vehicle owner is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the amount of KRW 500,000 of a fine) is too unjustifiable and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Article 46(2)2 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act provides that “A motor vehicle owner who operates a motor vehicle not covered by mandatory insurance in violation of the main sentence of Article 8 of the same Act,” and Article 2 subparag. 3 of the same Act provides that “the term “motor vehicle owner” refers to the owner of a motor vehicle or a person who has the right to use a motor vehicle and who operates a motor vehicle for his/her own sake.” The term “the person who has the right to use a motor vehicle here includes all persons who have the right to use the motor vehicle for his/her own sake regardless of the cause of lease, loan for use, delegation contract, or other legal relations (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do1018, Apr. 23, 2004), and “a person who operates a motor vehicle for his/her own sake” refers to a person who is in the position of a responsible subject to the benefit of the motor vehicle operation

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da3918, May 10, 1991). In light of the above legal principle, the circumstances in its reasoning, which were acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, are as follows.