The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant alleged misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine is a motor vehicle user under the Motor Vehicle Management Act, since he operated the motor vehicle with the consent of K with the secured right holder of the instant motor vehicle.

In addition, the Defendant had justifiable reasons for operating the said automobile, since he had continuously demanded the transfer of the vehicle owner’s name to L, who is the husband of the said vehicle after purchasing the said automobile.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby finding the Defendant guilty.

B. In full view of the various sentencing conditions in the instant case, the sentence that the lower court rendered against the Defendant (the amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine the determination of the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, and the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① the Defendant purchased the instant vehicle from K that operates a pawnedn in the vicinity of the Gangwon Gwon casino on July 2015, and the owner of the instant vehicle did not verify the matters concerning the operation of the vehicle in the process; and the Defendant did not receive all documents related to the entrustment of the operation of the vehicle or documents related to the ownership of the vehicle (a written agreement submitted by the Defendant during the public trial and a written consent for the operation and use of the vehicle are all prepared by K and no relation with the entrustment of the owner of the vehicle). ② The Defendant discussed the transfer of the owner’s husband and the name during the operation of the said vehicle.

However, in light of the fact that the F, who is the owner of a small vehicle, did not contact with the F, the Defendant is an automobile user entrusted with the operation of the vehicle.

It can not be said that there is no justifiable reason for the defendant to operate the above vehicle.