beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. A motor vehicle user who is entrusted with the operation, etc. of a motor vehicle by a motor vehicle owner or a motor vehicle owner shall operate the motor vehicle;
On June 20, 2017, even if the Defendant is not a legitimate user of CFF car, the Defendant operated D-owned vehicle from the front of the apartment to the road of about 10km from the front of the apartment to the road of about 616 meters from the front of the apartment to the front of the 616th of the Gu.
2. Determination
A. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that, although they did not directly permit the owner of the instant vehicle to operate the instant vehicle from the owner of the instant vehicle, they were allowed by E to use the instant vehicle, and they believed that E had a legitimate right to possess, and thus, they did not have any awareness or intent on the fact that they did not receive entrustment of the matters concerning the operation of the instant vehicle from the owner of the instant vehicle.
B. Determination 1) Article 81 subparag. 7-2 of the Automobile Management Act provides that “A person who operates a motor vehicle in violation of Article 24-2(1) shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than one year or by a fine not exceeding ten million won.” Article 24-2(1) of the same Act provides that “A motor vehicle shall be operated by a motor vehicle user under Article 2 subparag. 3 (a person entrusted with matters concerning the operation, etc. of a motor vehicle by the owner of a motor vehicle or the owner of a motor vehicle).” However, if a person who is not the owner of a motor vehicle or a person who does not have been entrusted with matters concerning the operation, etc. by the owner of a motor vehicle recognizes such circumstance and operates a motor vehicle, the motor vehicle shall be deemed to have violated the Automobile Management Act.
2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of this case, the owner D of this case borrowed money from the creditor F in 2012.