beta
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2014.06.11 2013고단1489

공기호부정사용등

Text

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

Reasons

1. Summary of the facts charged

A. On January 28, 2013, from February 28, 2013 to February 28, 2013, the Defendant unlawfully used a motor vehicle registration number plate of the air by placing a DNA number plate on the number plate of the said Cost Star vehicle and then removing the number plate of the Defendant’s C Cost Star vehicle.

B. The Defendant at the time and place specified in paragraph 1, attached D number plates illegally used, as described in paragraph 1, and exercised the illegally used air defense by operating C Cost Star vehicles.

2. The Defendant asserted that, as stated in the above facts charged from the police to this court, the vehicle number plate was removed and the other number plate was not attached, and that the vehicle was operated without knowing that another number plate was attached, and that the above facts charged were denied.

According to the following: (a) the Defendant’s statement at the police and the prosecution; (b) the prosecutor’s statement at the police and the prosecutor’s office; (c) the investigation report at the prosecutor’s office (the confirmation while in custody of the suspect’s number plate); (d) the police investigation report; (c) the police investigation report; (d) the inquiry report on the stolen vehicle; (e) the police-related vehicle; and (e) the police-related official notice on the vehicle in custody following the local tax in arrears; and (d) the vehicle’s photograph, the Defendant was discovered as operating another vehicle while operating the vehicle; (e) the vehicle operated by the Defendant is a vehicle under the name of F, the Defendant’s mother; and (e) the number plate was kept in custody from October 10, 2012 to the Namyang River; and (e) the subsequent number plate of the vehicle operated by the Defendant was a stolen number plate between February 28, 2013 to one month.

However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant, only with the above recognition facts, replaced the number plate of the above vehicle to a third party and operated it with the knowledge of it, and it is otherwise recognized.