The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (Bodily Injury), the defendant was employed by AH and the AH instructed the defendant to operate the instant vehicle and handle the business, it is naturally believed that the comprehensive insurance that applies to the defendant.

In other words, the defendant did not know that he will drive a vehicle that is not covered by a comprehensive insurance, and the court below found the defendant guilty.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The main text of Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents provides that where a vehicle causing a traffic accident is covered by insurance or mutual aid, a driver who commits a crime causing bodily injury by occupational negligence shall not be prosecuted.

Here, “Non-existence of the fact of subscription to insurance or mutual aid” is not an element of a crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (Bodily Injury) but a passive litigation condition, and is assessed only by the existence of the fact of subscription regardless of

The purport of this part of the defendant's assertion is that there was no awareness that he will drive a vehicle that is not covered by a comprehensive insurance, and even if the defendant's assertion is a fact, it does not affect the establishment of the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (Bodily Injury) by misunderstanding the conditions of passive lawsuit, which does not affect the establishment of the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (the main sentence of Article 4 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (the defendant is not subject to the comprehensive insurance as stated in the judgment of the court below). Ultimately, the defendant's assertion about this part is established as a crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the