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

The defendant is the driver of B 320cc Oba.

No one shall change a structure, device, etc. of a motor vehicle without obtaining approval from the head of the competent Gu or operate a motor vehicle knowing that its structure, device, etc. is changed without approval.

Nevertheless, on October 21, 2019, the Defendant arbitrarily changed the noise prevention device of the above Otoba in the Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, and operated the above Otoba from that time to November 5, 2019, the Seoul Seodaemun-gu, Seoul Sababa, and the Jongno-gu, Seoul D.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A certificate of an offense;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing B-wheeled motor vehicles taken at the time of field control;

1. Article 81 subparagraph 19 of the Motor Vehicle Management Act, Article 81 and Article 34 of the same Act, Article 81 and Article 81 subparagraph 20 of the Motor Vehicle Management Act, Article 34 of the Motor Vehicle Management Act, and the selection of fines for crimes;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

1. Scope of punishment by law: A fine not exceeding 15 million won;

2. It seems that the Defendant, who was sentenced, recognized the instant crime, appears to be against the Defendant.

It seems that there are some circumstances to consider the circumstances leading to the Defendant’s crime of this case.

There is no other criminal records against the defendant except once before the fine is imposed on the violation of the Road Traffic Act in 2019.

However, in light of the legislative purpose of the Automobile Management Act that intends to manage automobiles efficiently and secure the performance and safety of automobiles, it is difficult to view that the crime of this case is less complicated.

The Defendant arbitrarily changed the noise prevention device of the Oralba, and furthermore, operated the Oralba.

(b) other.