However, on May 15, 2015, from around 08:30 to around 08:40 on the same day, the Defendant operated a stacked vehicle by fixing the freezing tower of 16.5 meters in length on the back-to-date, and 2.5 meters in height of 2.5 meters on the back-to-date, at approximately 4km section from the 08:30 to the 08:40 on the same day.

2. However, as indicated in the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant’s operation of the materials indicated in the instant facts charged (hereinafter “this case’s freezing r”) by fixing the Defendant as aground on the bags rackers owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant rackers”).

However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted by the court and examined by the court, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed as constituting a "motor vehicle tubes" under the Motor Vehicle Management Act, and no other evidence exists to acknowledge the act of fixing the freezingr of this case as aground.

A. According to Article 2 subparag. 11 of the Motor Vehicle Management Act, “motor vehicle tubes” means partially altering the structure and devices of a motor vehicle or adding affixed objects to a motor vehicle. Thus, in order to constitute the tubes, the alteration of the structure and devices of the motor vehicle should be made or the addition of affixed objects should be made.

B. The freezingr of this case is allowed to load and unload the freezingr of this case in such a manner as to fix it with aground, and can be relatively easily separated from the tr, and the freezingr can load and unload the said freezingr using the racker.

In the freezing test of this case, the freezing is contained in the freezing which has an independent power source and engine fuel device, and therefore the freezingr of this case.