logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.08.27 2014노2239
자동차관리법위반
Text

Acquittal of the accused shall be acquitted.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-finding, the Defendant merely carried out luminous work at the request of the borrower of a DNA car and did not carry out any work of cutting and repairing the headlight from June 22, 2012, and there was no violation of the Automobile Management Act as stated in the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the court below convicted the defendant by misunderstanding the facts.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a person operating an internal and external management company in the name of Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

around 15:00 on March 18, 2014, the Defendant, without registering the motor vehicle management business with the head of the Gu-gu Seoul Metropolitan City head, provided the motor vehicle management business with equipment, such as compliance presses, paints, and bags, and receiving repair expenses, from June 22, 2012 to June 22, 2012.

B. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal for the trial.

1) The so-called business crime is a single type of collective crime, for which the repetition of the same kind of act is naturally expected due to the nature of its constituent elements, and thus, as an act constituting such business crime, several acts continuously and repeatedly conducted at the same place for a certain period, barring any special circumstance, shall be deemed to constitute one comprehensive crime (see Supreme Court Decisions 83Do939, Jun. 14, 1983; 2005Do5665, Dec. 23, 2005). In a case where a judgment becomes final and conclusive with respect to part of the crime in the single comprehensive crime, the final and conclusive judgment shall be sentenced to acquittal after the res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment has been suspended (see Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do1252, May 11, 2006; 2013Do1649, Jan. 16, 2014).

arrow