(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.07.22 2015노6099 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.07.22 2015노6099

자동차관리법위반

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. In full view of the following: (a) the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is as follows: (b) about 59 attachment was made on the instant vehicle; (c) no measures were taken to get back the instant vehicle even though the number plate was kept in custody due to the failure to pay the automobile tax; (d) no measures were taken even after the closure of a limited company E registered as the owner; (e) contact address is not set back on the vehicle; and (e) no measures were taken even with the knowledge of the towing vehicle; and (e) the vehicle did not take any particular measures even

Nevertheless, the court below which acquitted the defendant on this matter has erred by mistake.

2. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the owner of CJ passenger cars.

No owner or possessor of an automobile may leave an automobile alone on the road continuously.

Nevertheless, from October 12, 2010 to June 2, 2010, the Defendant continued to stop the said vehicle on the back-line of the parking line in the city of Ansan-gu, Gyeonggi-do.

3. The lower court determined that, in light of the following: (a) the instant motor vehicle was parked in the line of parking a side-way 120 meters away from the Defendant’s residence; (b) the parking place is a place where no one can park without restriction; (c) the period of two months from the time the number plate of the instant motor vehicle was kept in custody until being towed; (d) the instant motor vehicle was insured at the time the number plate was kept in custody; and (c) the Defendant was not served with a notice on voluntary treatment; and (d) the instant motor vehicle was worn down but was dissatisfed, but there was no special external disorder in terms of its function, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant was de facto renounced of the management of the instant motor vehicle; and (e)

4. Article 26(1) of the Motor Vehicle Management Act provides that a deliberation by the Committee shall be conducted.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2016.04.29 2015노6098

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.04.06 2017노4574

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2014.02.18 2013고정2047

-대법원 2010. 3. 25. 선고 2010도1656 판결

-서울북부지방법원 2015.02.05 2014노1413