The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The Defendant, by misapprehending the legal principles, was confined to the Mana prison at the time when he should subscribe to liability insurance, was unable to subscribe to liability insurance.

Nevertheless, the court below erred in finding guilty of violating the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (700,000 won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Article 46(2)2 and the main text of Article 8 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act provides that a motor vehicle owner who operated a motor vehicle not covered by mandatory insurance shall be punished. According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant did not purchase a mandatory insurance policy on the instant motorcycle at the time of driving the instant motorcycle.

In this regard, there were circumstances such as taking custody of the prison at the time of the expiration of the mandatory insurance contract term, as claimed by the Defendant.

Even if a motorcycle was not covered by mandatory insurance at the time of the actual operation of the motorcycle, it does not interfere with the finding of the charge of violating the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act guilty, and there is no circumstance to deem otherwise that the Defendant was justifiable to have not bought a mandatory insurance.

Defendant’s assertion is not accepted.

B. In full view of the sentencing conditions, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and environment, even though the Defendant had been punished several times due to the same kind of crime, and the Defendant committed the crime without a license in this case, and the Defendant was likely to cause a traffic accident at the time of each of the instant crimes, the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

Defendant’s assertion is not accepted.

3. Conclusion