beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 천안지원 2018.11.09 2018고정537

자동차관리법위반

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is the owner of the vehicle B in the Do.

Where any owner of a motor vehicle intends to conduct the tubes for the items prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation of national land, he/she shall obtain approval from the head of a Si/Gun

Nevertheless, on February 9, 2018, the Defendant, without obtaining the approval of the competent market, installed a 30cm wide, 30cm high, 15.5cm high (5cm high - length 5cm high, 4cm high, 6cm high, etc.) in the shape similar to the taxi side of the taxi side of the taxi in the amount of 30cm wide, 30cm high, 15.5cm high.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial statement of the protocol concerning the examination of the suspect against the defendant;

1. Original Register of Automobile Registration;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each vehicle photograph;

1. Article 81 Subparag. 19 and Article 34 of the Automobile Management Act concerning facts constituting an offense, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The defendant's argument as to Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order is asserted to the purport that the crime of violating the Automobile Management Act is not established on the roof of the vehicle as indicated in the judgment, since the black booms and booms are attached to the antenna and static auxiliary devices, and they are covered with the side of the judgment in order to protect the above devices.

However, Article 2 subparag. 11 of the Automobile Management Act defines "motor vehicle tubes" as "the alteration of part of the structure and device of a motor vehicle or the addition of an attachment to a motor vehicle." According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, it is reasonable to see that the side, etc. attached by the defendant is the same as the side, etc. attached to a taxi with its shape and size, and is outside it, and it is reasonable to see that it is a light device as prescribed by Article 8 subparag. 2 subparag. 14 of the Enforcement Decree of the Motor Vehicle Management Act. Thus, if it is changed or added as it constitutes a motor vehicle device.