1. For the following reasons, the court below reversed the judgment of the court of first instance that found the Defendant guilty of the charges of this case, and sentenced the Defendant not guilty of the charges of this case, on the ground that the facts charged of this case was not a crime, on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant was found to have engaged in the automobile maintenance business, such as filling gas with the air-conditioning container operated by himself without obtaining permission for the automobile maintenance business, repairing the air-conditioning container for the car, and receiving the amount of KRW 15,000 each at the repair cost.

In other words, a person who intends to operate an automobile management business under the main sentence of Article 49 (1) of the Automobile Management Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") before it was amended by Act No. 4489 of December 31, 1991 shall obtain permission from the Minister of Construction and Transportation. The automobile management business means the automobile management business, automobile maintenance business and automobile scrapping business (h) of Article 2 (7) of the Act, automobile maintenance business excluding two wheeled automobiles (including inspection) and alteration of structure and devices, and the term "those as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation" means those other than those as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation (Article 2 subparagraph 9 of the Act). The term "those as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation" is not included in Article 1 (a) through (f) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Management Act (amended by Ordinance No. 95 of August 3, 191) [Attachment 11] [Attachment 11] of the Motor Vehicle Maintenance Business Act excluding Inspection and Maintenance Manual No.

2. According to Article 2 subparagraph 9 of the "Act" and Article 162 [Attachment Table 11] of the "Rules," and other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the "maintenance and checkup" under subparagraph 1 (h) of attached Table 11 of the above [Attachment Table 11] refers to the maintenance and checkup other than the printing, painting, and melting with respect to the body of a vehicle (see attached Table 11 of the "Rules" amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Transport and Transportation No. 968 of Jan. 16, 192). Since it is apparent that the air container attached to the vehicle does not fall under the body of a vehicle, it is obvious that the court below's decision that gas filling or repairing the air container attached to the vehicle falls under subparagraph 1 (h) of attached Table 11] is erroneous.

3. However, even if the term “automobile management business” and “automobile management business” defined in subparagraphs 7 and 9 of Article 2 of the “Act” and “Act” do not fall under the category 1(a) through (h) of [Attachment 1] of Article 162 of the “Rules” which prescribe “Rules as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation,” Article 29(1) which prescribe the safety standards for the structure and devices of automobiles, Article 12 of the Enforcement Decree of the “Act” and Article 29(2) of the “Act,” Article 76 [Attachment 9] of the “Rules,” Article 34(1) of the “Rules,” which prescribe the standards for the installation and inspection of automobile structures and devices, or Article 77(2) [Attachment 10] of the “Rules,” Article 34(2) of the “Rules,” which provide for the approval of the Minister of Construction and Transportation for the alteration of the specifications and equipment of the “Act,” Article 76(1) [Attachment 10] of the “Rules,” and Article 7 of the “Rules”.

Therefore, the conclusion that the court below decided that the defendant's case was not a crime is justifiable, and the above illegality of the court below committed was not affected by the judgment.

4. Therefore, on the premise that the work of filling or repairing gas in a container attached to an automobile constitutes “the work of altering the structure and device of an automobile” as stipulated in Article 2 subparag. 9 of the Act, there is no reason to argue that the judgment of the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the scope of automobile maintenance business, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating