1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant operated a stackd vehicle by fixing the freezingr to aground without obtaining approval from the head of the Si/Gun/Gu.

As to this, the court below reversed the first instance judgment which acquitted the Defendant, and convicted the charges, on the ground that the freezingr of this case was used as a combination for structural purposes, and that the length or height of trr actually increased, fixing the freezingr onto Tr is an addition to a motor vehicle and constitutes a "motor vehicle tubes" as provided by the Automobile Management Act.

2. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

A. Article 2 (Definition) Subparag. 11 of the Automobile Management Act provides that “the alteration of part of the structure and device of a motor vehicle or the addition of an attachment to a motor vehicle” shall be construed as “the alteration of the structure and device of a motor vehicle” and Article 8 (motor vehicle structure and device) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and Article 55 (Criteria for Approval of Piping) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provide that the alteration of structure and device requiring approval, such as length, height, total weight, etc

Therefore, in order to fall under the tubes requiring the approval of the Automobile Management Act, it is necessary to change part of the structure of the automobile due to the act of the defendant, regardless of whether the act of the defendant constitutes the addition of attached objects.

B. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following facts.

(1) The instant racker is a modified racker, the length of which can be increased, depending on the need. The freezingr of this case is of a size that can be loaded on the racker whose length is extended, and the fuel tank is separate at the front and bottom of the freezingr.