The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds of appeal 1) In fact, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and rendered a judgment of conviction against the Defendant, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, although the Defendant was unable to subscribe to the mandatory insurance owned by the Defendant.

2) The sentence of the lower court that was unfair in sentencing (an amount of KRW 500,00) is too unreasonable.

2. The determination of the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine constitutes “motor vehicle-wheeled automobile” as prescribed in Article 3 of the Motor Vehicle Management Act and attached Table 1 of Article 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the said Act, and thus, it is subject to the provision of the Motor Vehicle Management Act that applies to the operation of motor vehicles.

Article 5 of the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Act provides that the owner of an automobile shall subscribe to liability insurance or liability mutual aid to the victim who is liable to pay the amount of money prescribed by Presidential Decree if another person dies or is injured due to the operation of the automobile

Article 8 of the Act provides that a motor vehicle not covered by such mandatory insurance shall not be operated on the road.

In addition, Article 46 (2) 2 of the Act provides that a person who operates an automobile not covered by mandatory insurance in violation of the main sentence of Article 8 shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than one year or by a fine not exceeding ten million won.

According to the records of this case, the defendant is responsible for the violation of Article 8 of the Guarantee of Automobile Damage Compensation Act, since he operated a private-wheeled automobile, which falls under a motor vehicle under the Automobile Management Act, which was not mandatory insurance, on the road provided for the traffic of the general public.

The above judgment of the court below is justified.

3. The lower court sentenced a fine of KRW 500,00 to the Defendant, taking into account the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant and favorable circumstances.

The defendant, in particular, is a condition for sentencing in this Court.