자동차관리법위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant attached spags without obtaining approval, and this constitutes a change in the automobile structure, but the court below found the defendant not guilty of the charge of violating the Automobile Management Act, which erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. The Defendant is the actual operator of Cmat Vehicle.
Where the owner of a motor vehicle intends to change the structure of a motor vehicle prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, he/she shall obtain approval from the head of a Si/Gun/Gu, but the defendant, on July 2013, he/she had a motor vehicle structure altered by attaching a mae-motor vehicle fluor to the head of the competent Si/Gun/Gu without obtaining approval from the competent Si/Gun/Gu.
B. The lower court determined that the Defendant was not guilty on the grounds that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to acknowledge whether the act of painting the instant vehicle and attaching sculls constitutes a change in structure in violation of the Automobile Management Act, and that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
C. A person who falls under any of the following subparagraphs under Article 81 (Penal Provisions) of the former Automobile Management Act (Amended by Act No. 12217, Jan. 7, 2014) (Amended by Act No. 12217, Jan. 7, 2014);
19. A person who alters a structure or device of a motor vehicle without obtaining approval from the head of a Si/Gun/Gu in violation of Article 34 (including the case as applicable mutatis mutandis in Article 52) (1) Where he/she intends to alter any of the structures or devices of a motor vehicle prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, the owner of such motor vehicle shall obtain approval
Gu.