The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The grounds of appeal (in fact-finding and unreasonable sentencing) stated in the facts charged of this case as follows: (a) the defendant operated the B Le-Support Automobile (hereinafter, the instant vehicle) which was not covered by mandatory insurance on March 26, 2010 on March 16, 2010 on the national highway No. 17 between the former and the former, the former, the former, the former, North, and the South, North, the Defendant did not own the instant vehicle; (b) the Defendant did not know that the instant vehicle was not covered by the liability insurance; (c) but did not know that the instant vehicle was not covered by the liability insurance; (d) the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged of the instant case even if it was found guilty, there was an error of law by mistake of facts, and by misapprehending the legal principles, the lower court’s sentencing (limited to KRW 3

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant purchased the instant vehicle at KRW 2.2 million through a person (sexually French C) around March 4, 2010. On March 26, 2010, the defendant was inspected in the course of driving the instant vehicle at the front city and driving the instant vehicle at the front city at around March 16, 2010. The defendant was issued a copy of the registration certificate at the time of purchasing the instant vehicle, a copy of the certificate of automobile transfer, and a copy of the certificate of vehicle transfer, etc. at the time of trying to register the transfer of ownership, and continued to hold the instant vehicle without any specific measure. The instant vehicle was a vehicle that was not covered by the liability insurance after June 28, 2009, and the defendant did not have confirmed whether to subscribe to the liability insurance, and even if he did not attempt to subscribe to the liability insurance for three weeks after delivery of the instant vehicle, the defendant did not know that the instant vehicle was operated as the instant vehicle.