The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, the gist of the grounds of appeal can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant owned the automobile and operated the instant vehicle in the state of non-insurance.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant as to the facts charged in this case on the ground that it cannot be readily concluded that the defendant is a motor vehicle owner with driving control or operating profit of the vehicle in this case.

2. Determination

A. On December 16, 2015, the Defendant: (a) as a manager of Cunstst Pacific Cargo; (b) operated the said vehicle at a 500-meter section at the site of the Sincheon-si Expressway Highway construction site to E office in a non-insurance state.

B. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the instant charges on the ground that the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant was the owner of the instant vehicle who has control over the operation of the instant vehicle or the benefits of the operation of the instant vehicle, and that there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

(c)

Since a thorough examination of the above judgment of the court below in light of the records of this case is justified, the prosecutor's assertion is without merit (whether a prosecutor takes charge of the management of the vehicle of this case).

the defendant's question of the police officer "I swear."

The author mainly uses them.

The purport that “the answer was made”.