The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. On January 2, 2015, the Defendant: (a) owned B Poter’s early Poter; (b) operated the said vehicle on the street that was not covered by mandatory insurance on January 2, 2015, despite the Defendant’s failure to operate the vehicle on the road.

2. The Defendant asserts that driving of the above vehicle at the time stated in the facts charged, but the place where the Defendant driven is not the road but the street parking lot, that is, the parking section installed by the white line so that the vehicle can be parked on the road. The Defendant asserts that there was an accident that contacts the vehicle that was incurred after driving the above vehicle within the parking section.

In order to establish a crime falling under Article 46 (2) 2 and the main sentence of Article 8 of the Guarantee of Automobile Damage Compensation Act, a motor vehicle not covered by mandatory insurance shall be operated on the road.

However, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant operated the above vehicle on the road at the time stated in the facts charged.

If the prosecutor's opinion moves 5 meters from the investigative agency's statement that the defendant moved the above vehicle about 5 meters, the part of the vehicle inevitably goes out of the parking zone, and if it moves only within the parking zone, it cannot be contacted with other vehicles, so it is evident that the defendant is driving off from the parking zone and driving on the road.

However, at the Defendant’s assertion, the parking zone line is installed so that vehicles can be parked on a one-way basis depending on the road (as such, according to the images of photographs Nos. 1 and 2 submitted by the Defendant, it appears that the parking lot is installed) and then the vehicle parked in the parking zone may have been moved at a quantity of 5 meters.

part of the vehicle must be out of the parking lot.