(a) The meaning of “automobile used only at a place other than roads” under Article 64 subparag. 7 of the Automobile Management Act and Article 20 of the Regulations on Special Cases for Automobile Management;

(b) The meaning of "motor vehicles manufactured and assembled for export" under Article 64 subparagraph 8 of the Automobile Management Act and Article 21 of the Regulations on Special Cases for Automobile Management;

(c) Whether it constitutes an act of operating an automobile management business without permission in the event that the automobile management business has been assembled without obtaining permission for the automobile management business for export but fails to drive on the domestic road (affirmative);

(a) The term “motor vehicles used only at a place other than roads” as prescribed by Article 3 of the Automobile Management Act and Article 20 of the Regulations on Special Cases concerning the Management of Motor Vehicles, which are the traffic ordinances delegated by Article 64 subparagraph 7 of the Motor Vehicle Management Act and Article 64 of the same Act, shall not be construed to mean the motor vehicles used only at a place other than roads in their structure, use, etc., and to mean the motor vehicles operated only at a place other than the roads of the Republic of Korea;

B. The term “motor vehicles manufactured and assembled for export” under Article 64 subparag. 8 of the Automobile Management Act and Article 21 of the Regulations on Special Cases concerning the Management of Motor Vehicles delegated by the said Act shall be interpreted as including the cases of new manufacture and assembly for export purposes, and it does not include the cases of purchasing and maintaining a used motor vehicle immediately before the scrapping.

C. The defendant's act of assembling used cars without the permission of the automobile management business for export does not fall under subparagraph 7 or 8 of Article 64 of the above Act even if the vehicle was operated on the roads in Korea, and thus, it can be punished at the rate of subparagraph 2 of Article 70 and subparagraph 1 of Article 49 of the above Act.

(a)Article 3 and Article 64 subparag. 7 of the Automobile Management Act, Article 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and Article 20(b) of the Regulations on Special Cases concerning Automobile Management (Ordinance of Ministry of Transport No. 868 of Oct. 17, 1987). Article 2 subparag. 5 and Article 64 subparag. 8 of the Automobile Management Act, Article 21 of the Rules on Special Cases concerning Automobile Management;

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 90No455 delivered on July 11, 1990

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

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below provides that "a person who intends to run an automobile management business shall obtain the permission of the Minister of Construction and Transportation", and Article 70 subparagraph 2 of the Automobile Management Act provides that a person who runs an automobile management business without obtaining the permission of the Minister of Construction and Transportation in violation of Article 49 (1) shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 10 years or by a fine not exceeding 10 million won.

However, Article 64 of the same Act provides that "The provisions of this Act, notwithstanding the provisions of this Act, shall apply to the registration, type approval, inspection, maintenance, inspection, and scrapping of automobiles falling under any of the following subparagraphs", and provides that "the above provisions of the same Act shall be recognized as an exception to the provisions of the above provisions," and provides that "the automobiles temporarily imported under the Customs Act other than the roads (referring to the roads and other places used for general traffic under the Road Act)" shall be listed, and the automobiles manufactured and assembled for export" shall also be treated as an exception to the above provisions of the Automobile Management Act (see subparagraphs 1 through 4 of the same Article), and it is clear that the provisions of the Automobile Management Act, which provide for exceptions to the above provisions of the Automobile Management Act, are not applicable to the cases where it is necessary to give special treatment to the automobile management such as automobiles owned by diplomats stationed in the Republic of Korea (see the above provisions of the Automobile Management Act, and it seems reasonable to provide for exceptions to the provisions of the Automobile Management Act for the purpose of construction and management of automobiles for the Republic of Korea, and its general safety standards."

In light of the above facts, the defendant's statement at the investigative agency, the court below and the trial court, Kim Young-ok at the police and the prosecutor's office, Kim Young-ok, Park Young-ok, Park Young-chul, Kim Byung-chul, Kim Byung-chul, and a business registration certificate which is bound in the records, trade (A), the corporate registration certificate, the certificate of corporate registration (Seoul 4g omitted), export specifications, applications for approval for export and the list of export pages at the time of original adjudication, the first automobile number of 30 U.S. and 40 U.S. 2 omitted in Seoul and 9 U.S. 30 U.M. 2 omitted from 32 U.M. to 9 U.S. 30 U.S. 10 U.M. 10.M. 30 U.S. 10 U.M. 10.M. 30 U.M.M.M. and 10 U.M. 30 U.M.M.M.M. were newly registered for the above 10 U.MMMMMMMM.

However, according to the purport of Article 64 subparagraph 7 and 8 of the Automobile Management Act and Article 20 and Article 21 of the Regulations on Special Cases concerning the Management of Motor Vehicles, which are traffic ordinances delegated by the same Act, the term "motor vehicles used only at a place other than roads (referring to roads and other places used for general traffic; hereinafter the same shall apply)" under Article 64 subparagraph 7 of the said Act and Article 20 of the said Rules, among the types of motor vehicles under Article 3 of the said Act and Article 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the said Act, the term "motor vehicles used only at a place other than roads." It shall not be construed as a motor vehicle operated only at a place other than roads of the Republic of Korea as stated in its reasoning. The term "motor vehicles manufactured and assembled for export" under Article 64 subparagraph 8 of the said Act and Article 21 of the said Rules are combined with the definition of a used motor vehicle, and it shall not be interpreted as a new motor vehicle to be purchased or scrapped for export, and it shall not be interpreted as a used vehicle.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that since the 31st price of the second half of the judgment that was assembled by the defendant for export was known to the roads in Korea, it cannot be punished at the rate of Article 70 subparag. 2 and Article 49 subparag. 1 of the above Act on the ground that it constitutes Article 64 subparag. 7 and 8 of the above Act and Article 20 and Article 21 of the above Rule, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, is erroneous. Thus, the appeal pointing this out is with merit.

2. The court below recognized the fact that the defendant requested the maintenance of Maju Industrial Co., Ltd. which obtained the first class car maintenance business permission under the Automobile Management Act and completed the maintenance on August 25, 1989. According to the records, the defendant, upon examination by the prosecutor's office, consistently up to the first instance court's order, and consistently purchased the second class Man2 motor vehicle immediately before scrapping, including transportation expenses on July 22, 1989, from the last 320,000 won, before the Gangnamnam Motor Vehicle Registration Office located in Samsungdong-dong, which was located in Gangnam-gu, the defendant purchased the first class 320,00 won, including transportation expenses from the fourth class agent, the maintenance and painting at his without permission factory, and requested Maju Industrial Co., Ltd. 2 to maintain Maju Industrial Co., Ltd., Ltd., under the name of 3, 1989.

After all, the court below accepted only the defendant's non-liability change lawsuit in the court of original judgment, and accepted the above evidence of conviction as a document for the recognition of innocence, and inconsistent therewith. The judgment of the court below affected the judgment by misunderstanding of facts in violation of the rules of evidence, and thus, it is reasonable to point this out.

3. 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.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)