[2] The case holding that the judgment below which found the defendant guilty of violating the Automobile Management Act is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principle in a case where the defendant was prosecuted with the charge that "a motor vehicle was occupied on a road for at least one year" while he was unable to find a motor vehicle due to a failure to provide repair expenses after leaving the repair business to the repair business

[2] In a case where the defendant was prosecuted with the charge that "motor vehicle was parked on the road for one year or more" while leaving a motor vehicle to a repair business entity and failing to prepare repair expenses, the case holding that the judgment below which found the defendant guilty of violating the Automobile Management Act on the ground that it cannot be deemed that it was a de facto abandonment of management of the motor vehicle by leaving the motor vehicle parked on the road without any special management act during the period specified in the facts charged was erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principle as to "refiscing" under Article 26 (1) 2 of the Automobile Management Act

Article 26 (1) 2 of the Automobile Management Act provides that "the act of leaving a motor vehicle alone on the road continuously" refers to the case where it is recognized that the management of the motor vehicle is practically waived by continuously parking the motor vehicle on the road without any special management act.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, the defendant's branch was entrusted with the automobile of this case owned by the defendant to the repair company around November 2005, and the defendant was transferred to the repair company in currency with employees of the above repair company around June 2006 and the repair cost of this case exceeded KRW 2 million. However, since the repair company failed to prepare the above repair cost, the resident's report was received on April 7, 2008 that the automobile of this case was occupied without permission for more than one year on the road of this case, and the voluntary disposal order was delivered to the defendant on April 30, 2008 by the head of the competent Gu, but the defendant did not take any measures thereafter. In light of the above circumstances, the court below found the defendant guilty of the charge of this case on the ground that the defendant could be deemed to have renounced the management of the automobile of this case from April 207 to April 208.

However, in this case, the Defendant did not find the instant motor vehicle from the repair company due to the repair cost, and argued that he was unaware of whether the instant motor vehicle was parked on the instant road during the period indicated in the facts charged. However, based on the circumstances cited by the lower court, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have de facto renounced the management of the instant motor vehicle by leaving the instant motor vehicle parked on the instant road without any special management during the period indicated in the facts charged.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found a guilty of the facts charged in this case based on the above circumstances is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the act of neglecting under Article 26 (1) 2 of the Automobile Management Act, and it is obvious that this affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)