자동차관리법위반
1. The defendant is not guilty;
2. The summary of the judgment of this case shall be announced publicly.
The Defendant is the owner of Brane vehicle in the facts charged.
Any person shall obtain approval from the head of a Si/Gun/Gu when he/she intends to change the structure and devices of a motor vehicle, as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry
Nevertheless, around October 10, 2013, the Defendant changed the structure structure of the motor vehicle by attaching an illegally remodeled exhauster noise with the aforementioned vehicle without obtaining the approval of the subordinate market in front of the Namyang-si, Namyang-si.
Judgment
Article 34 of the Motor Vehicle Management Act provides that "where a person intends to change any structure or device of a motor vehicle prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, the owner of the motor vehicle shall obtain approval from the head of the relevant Si/Gun/Gu, and Article 77 (7) of the same Act provides that "the head of the relevant Si/Gun/Gu may entrust his/her authority over approval under Article 34 (including the case to which the aforesaid Article shall apply mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 52) to the Korea Transportation Safety Authority established pursuant to the Korea Transportation Safety Authority Act and to the Korea Transportation Safety Authority, as prescribed by Presidential Decree." Article 19 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Motor Vehicle Management Act provides that "the head of the relevant Si/Gun/Gu shall entrust the Korea Transportation Safety Authority with the authority to approve alteration of
According to the records, the Defendant was recognized as having obtained the approval of alteration of the structure of the exhaustr noise device recorded in the facts charged from the Korea Transportation Safety Authority entrusted with the authority to approve alteration of the structure and devices of automobiles as prescribed in Article 34 of the Automobile Management Act by the Korea Transportation Safety Authority on December 11, 2012. Thus, the facts charged in the instant case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime and thus, acquitted the Defendant pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act,