The sentence of punishment against the Defendants shall be suspended separately.

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

Since the instant mobile toilet does not constitute an automobile under the Automobile Management Act, the facts charged in the instant case cannot be established on a different premise, and even if it falls under an automobile, there is no way to register it under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that there exists an intentional act or illegality recognition of a crime as it is difficult for the Defendants to know that the instant mobile toilet is subject to registration. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Unreasonable sentencing

The lower court against the Defendants is so unfair that the punishment (the fine of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

Although the Defendants asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the lower court, the lower court found the Defendants guilty of the instant facts charged on the grounds that “the instant mobile toilet constitutes an automobile under the Automobile Management Act and can be operated only when it should be registered in light of such circumstances.”

In addition to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts cited in the grounds of appeal or by misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion

① A motor vehicle manufacturer who meets certain requirements is allowed to operate a motor vehicle only after marking the chassis number. Although it is possible to directly mark the authority to mark the chassis number on his/her own, a motor vehicle manufacturer without such authority passes a certain procedure and requirements after obtaining permission from the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. Defendant 2 purchased the mobile toilet of this case without any chassis number on June 22, 2004 from Nonindicted Co., Ltd., and even if it was manufactured by a manufacturer of the motor vehicle who is not authorized to indicate the chassis number without obtaining permission, it is difficult to view that the vehicle manufacturer of this case can not obtain the chassis number from the Korea Transportation Safety Authority. However, it is difficult to view that the mobile toilet of this case is a mobile toilet or a cargo model manufactured for the purpose of using the vehicle without any authority to mark the chassis number on his/her own when it is difficult to understand that it is a mobile toilet or a cargo model manufactured for the purpose of using the vehicle without any authority to mark it on the front part of the truck.

3. As to the assertion of unreasonable sentencing

There is no previous difference between the Defendants. Although the instant mobile toilets were widely used for a considerable period of time in the government offices, there seems to be difficult to hold the Defendants liable for heavy damages. In full view of all the circumstances leading to the Defendants to commit the instant crime and the sentencing conditions indicated in the records, including the details and contents thereof, the punishment imposed by the lower court (a fine of KRW 300,000,000) is too heavy.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the defendants' appeal is based on its reasoning, and it is again decided as follows.

(a) Defendant 1: Article 80 subparag. 1, and Article 5 of the Automobile Management Act;

B. Defendant 2 corporation: Articles 83, 80 subparag. 1, and 5 of the Automobile Management Act

1. Selection of punishment (Defendant 1);

Selection of Fines

1. Detention in a workhouse (Defendant 1);

Articles 70 and 69(2)(100,000 won per day) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of sentence;

Article 59 (1) of each Criminal Code (the punishment to be suspended, each fine of 300,000 won)

Judges Kim Jong-tae (Presiding Judge)