[1] The criteria for determining whether Articles 10(5) and 82 of the former Automobile Management Act are violated

[2] In a case where the defendant, who is an employee of a hotel, was prosecuted for not distinguishing the number plate of a vehicle parked in a hotel parking lot by signboards, etc., the case holding that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which found the judgment below guilty on the ground that the above act cannot be punished as a violation of Articles 10 (5) and 82 of the former Automobile Management Act

[1] Article 10 (5) of the former Automobile Management Act (amended by Act No. 9449 of Feb. 6, 2009; hereinafter the same) provides that "no one shall cover a registration license plate nor make it illegible, and no one shall operate such a motor vehicle." Article 82 of the former Automobile Management Act provides that where a person intentionally violates Article 10 (5) of the former Automobile Management Act, he/she shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one million won, and each of the above provisions shall not be applied to any act that shield a registration license plate or makes it illegible. In light of the purport, purpose, content, and place of the former Automobile Management Act’s act to promote public welfare by efficiently managing the registration license plate and securing the performance and safety of the motor vehicle, it shall be determined whether the act violates the former Automobile Management Act by comprehensively taking into account the intention, purpose, contents, and place of the act. In particular, where the act, such as taking advantage of the registration license plate, etc., was conducted at a place where the act was conducted without any impediment or any private crime.

[2] In a case where the defendant, who is an employee of a hotel, was prosecuted for not distinguishing the number plate of a vehicle parked in a hotel parking lot by signboards, etc., the case holding that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation and application of Article 10 (5) of the former Automobile Management Act in the judgment of conviction on the ground that the above act was committed for the purpose of preventing privacy exposure at the request of the persons who use a hotel, etc., and since it was not related with the efficient management of a vehicle, the performance and safety of a vehicle, traffic and crime control, it cannot be punished under Articles 10 (5) and 82 of the former Automobile Management Act (amended by Act No. 9449 of Feb. 6, 2009; hereinafter the same shall apply)

[1] Articles 1, 10(5), and 82 of the former Automobile Management Act (amended by Act No. 9449 of Feb. 6, 2009) / [2] Articles 10(5) and 82 subparagraph 1 of the former Automobile Management Act (amended by Act No. 9449 of Feb. 6, 2009)

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008No4393 Decided March 26, 2009

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 10 (5) of the former Automobile Management Act provides that "no person shall cover a registration number plate nor make it illegible, and no person shall operate such a motor vehicle." Article 82 of the same Act provides that where a person intentionally violates Article 10 (5) of the same Act, he/she shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one million won. Each of the above provisions shall not be applied to all acts that cover a registration license plate or make it illegible, and the former Automobile Management Act aims to promote public welfare by efficiently managing the registration license plate and securing the performance and safety of the motor vehicle, and it shall be determined whether the person violates the former Automobile Management Act by comprehensively taking into account the intention, purpose, content, and place of the act, etc. In particular, if the act, such as adding a registration license plate, etc., is conducted in a private place regardless of the efficient management of the motor vehicle, securing of the performance and safety of the motor vehicle, regulation of traffic and crime, it shall not be subject to punishment pursuant to each of the above provisions.

Examining the record of this case in light of the above legal principles, even if the defendant committed an act of displaying the number plate of a vehicle parked in the hotel parking lot as an employee of a hotel, it is an act for the purpose of preventing his privacy exposure at the request of those who use the hotel, etc., and since it is not related to the efficient management of the vehicle, the performance and safety of the vehicle, traffic and crime control, it cannot be punished by applying Articles 10(5) and 82 of the former Automobile Management Act.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty on the grounds that Article 10(5) of the former Automobile Management Act should not be construed without permission. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on interpretation and application of Article 10(5) of the former Automobile Management Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Young-chul (Presiding Justice)