The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal did not know whether the instant vehicle was not covered by mandatory insurance, and did not know that it was punished if the instant vehicle was operated without purchasing mandatory insurance.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

2. The lower court acknowledged the following facts based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, i.e., ① the Defendant paid the instant vehicle to D at a price considerably lower than the market price of the instant vehicle during the pertinent ceremony from D on June 15, 2013. The price of the instant vehicle was KRW 4.8 million to KRW 5 million (Evidence No. 78 of the Evidence Record). According to D’s statement at D police, the Defendant appears to have caused approximately KRW 10 million to the market price of the instant vehicle during the pertinent ceremony.

In addition, the Defendant purchased the instant vehicle without properly identifying whether to purchase mandatory insurance (Evidence No. 2 & 99 of the evidence record, page 49 of the trial record), and ② the Defendant purchased the instant vehicle without knowing that the Defendant was a bond security vehicle or a substitute vehicle.

Even if the Defendant, on July 4, 2013, sold D in normal conditions, even though the instant vehicle was a bond-backed vehicle and cannot normally transfer its ownership.

In light of the fact that the Defendant had known that the instant vehicle was not a normal vehicle from around that time, since the Defendant submitted a petition stating that the instant vehicle was not a mandatory insurance policy (Evidence No. 76 of the evidence record), and that the Defendant operated the instant vehicle only without thoroughly inquiring about whether to purchase mandatory insurance policies, the Defendant is aware of the fact that the mandatory insurance on the instant vehicle was not covered, as stated in the judgment of the court below.