A A shall be punished by a fine not exceeding 500,000 won, and by a fine not exceeding 500,000 won.

Defendant

A.

1. Defendant A is a person in charge of vehicle management of ice C truck, a stock company located on 42-lane 38, Seogu Seo-gu, Seogu, Daegu City.

When the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs intends to change the structure and devices of motor vehicle, he/she shall obtain approval from the head of a Si/Gun/Gu

Nevertheless, on March 2012, the defendant requested a business entity where the trade name in Daegu is unknown without obtaining approval from the competent authority, and changed the structure of the motor vehicle by arbitrarily installing a rail for loading the truck.

2. The Defendant, who is an employee of the Defendant, committed the above act of violation in relation to the Defendant’s business at the date and time, and at the place specified in paragraph (1).

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol against D or accused;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on the occurrence of the case, a report on investigation (on-site photo), a reply to a request for confirmation of the details of change in the structure of a motor vehicle, an investigation report (a

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

A. Defendant A: Article 81 subparag. 19 and Article 34 of the Automobile Management Act, Article 55(2)2 of the Enforcement Rule of the said Act, the selection of fines

(b) Defendant corporation: Articles 83, 81 subparag. 19, and 34 of the Automobile Management Act; Article 55(2)2 of the Enforcement Rule of the said Act

1. Defendant A at a workhouse: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act [The assertion that the above Act disregards the actual condition of the recycling business is merely an erroneous purport of the National Assembly or the Government’s determination on where to what extent the safety would be sacrificeed for economic feasibility, and the court may not refuse the application in circumstances where the above Act does not seem unreasonable.]