When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

The defendant is a person who operates a trade company in Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City C.

No one shall dismantle any device prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Information and Communication for the national land in a motor vehicle, except for cases falling under the grounds prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Information and Communication, such as the inspection or maintenance of a motor vehicle, the scrapping of a motor vehicle, or the use of it for education

Nevertheless, at around 14:45 on June 2, 2017, the Defendant dismantled devices, such as car carriages, oxygen cutting machines, Compackers, and car factorings, which are equipped with equipment necessary to dismantle automobiles, such as car strings, strings, and strings, without a registration number plate attached to the above company.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Each photograph (18 to 20 pages) [In accordance with the evidence above, the defendant's dismantling of a motor vehicle constitutes an exception under Article 35 (2) of the Motor Vehicle Management Act, since it was deemed that the defendant's scrapping of a motor vehicle was not aimed at efficiently loading the motor vehicle for export, and thus does not constitute an exception under Article

1. Article 80 of the Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense, and Articles 80 subparagraph 4 and 35 of the Automobile Management Act, and selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

1. Determination as to the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel under the main sentence of Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The defendant and his defense counsel alleged to the effect that it was unlawful to dismantle a motor vehicle whose registration was cancelled, but the defendant has a justifiable reason to believe that it was unlawful.

Since there is no basis to view it, the above assertion is without merit.

2. Among the above evidence, the defendant and his defense counsel infringed upon the defendant's workplace without a search warrant and illegally collected evidence, and the witness E's legal statement is also based on illegal search.