자동차관리법위반
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable to impose a fine of KRW 300,00 on the Defendant, not an organization that installed light or light, even though the Defendant was not an organization, who was not an organization that installed light or light and received a reply from the organization to inquire about and process the Defendant’s vehicle for the activities of patroling the local crime, etc. as well as to seek from the organization for such activities.
2. Determination
A. Article 81 subparagraph 20 of the Automobile Management Act provides that a person who operated an automobile with its structure changed without obtaining approval from the Mayor, etc. shall be punished and the defendant shall also be punished.
The defendant, without undergoing due process, is the owner and operator of the instant vehicle where light light is installed and operated. The defendant's assertion premised on the fact that the quasi-organization installed light light, not the defendant operating the instant vehicle, is the offender is without merit.
B. In addition, even if the defendant asked the Seodaemun-gu Provincial Police Agency to respond to the past Seodaemun-gu Police Agency's argument that he would handle with the mind, the issue of whether it can be recognized as having asked such a question may be determined, in light of the content of the answer or the counter-party who asked the defendant, and therefore, it is not reasonable to deem that such mistake has justifiable grounds.
C. Lastly, in light of the Defendant’s above assertion of unreasonable sentencing, it seems that there was an awareness of illegality in light of the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, records of crime, motive, means and consequence of crime, circumstances after crime, etc., the lower court’s sentence should be reversed.