beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In fact, the Defendant merely lent a vehicle at the time of misunderstanding the legal doctrine and operated the vehicle, and is not the owner of the vehicle, and is not subject to criminal liability for operating the vehicle without purchasing mandatory insurance.
B. Sentencing
2. Determination
A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of the legal principles, Article 46(2)2 of the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Act provides that the owner of an automobile who operated an automobile not covered by mandatory insurance in violation of the main sentence of Article 7 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than one year or by a fine not exceeding ten million won. Thus, the subject of a violation of Article 46(2) of the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Act is the owner of the automobile, and the owner of the automobile is the owner of the automobile, and Article 2(3) of the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Act refers to the owner of the automobile or the person who has the right to use the automobile and operates the automobile for himself/herself.
The "person who has the right to use an automobile" shall be deemed to include all the persons who have the right to use an automobile on his/her behalf, such as lease, loan of use, and others, and the subject of the violation of Article 46 (2) of the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Act cannot be interpreted as the owner or the registered owner of the automobile.
In light of the above legal principles, the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, such as the health unit, the defendant's legal statement in the court below, the suspect interrogation protocol of D, the E phone statement, and the Automobile Registration Register, etc., should be comprehensively considered. Even if the defendant is not the nominal owner or owner of the instant vehicle, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant is "the person who has the right to use a motor vehicle" as the subject of driving control and driving profit. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant constitutes "the owner of a motor vehicle," who is the subject of the crime of violating Article
Therefore, the defendant's mandatory insurance.