The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 200,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence presented by the prosecutor in the gist of the grounds for appeal, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged on a different premise, even though the Defendant was a person entitled to use the erroneous land in this case as an “motor vehicle owner” under Article 46(2)2 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a holder of 125cc beta, without number plates, the Defendant.

No automobile which is not covered by mandatory insurance shall be operated on a road.

Nevertheless, at around 16:30 on January 25, 2014, the Defendant operated the above Obaba, which was not covered by mandatory insurance on the pre-fluoral post office located in Gyeyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu.

B. The court below held that the subject of the crime of violating Article 46 (2) 2 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act is the owner of an automobile, and Article 2 subparagraph 3 of the same Act provides that "the owner of an automobile "the owner of an automobile" or a person entitled to the use of an automobile "the person who operates an automobile for his/her own sake" refers to the person who is in the position of the subject of the responsibility for his/her own interest by controlling the operation of an automobile abstractly, and thus, the "the person who operates an automobile for his/her own own sake" refers to the person who is in the position of the subject of the responsibility for his/her interest by controlling the operation of an automobile abstractly. Thus, even if the owner of an automobile gratuitously lends the automobile to a person closely related to his/her relatives, such as his/her relatives, barring special circumstances, the operation control or the profit of the automobile still exists

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da3918, May 10, 1991) based on legal principles, the court below is legitimate.