Whether it is necessary to partially change the structure and devices of a motor vehicle due to the act, regardless of whether the defendant's act constitutes an additional attachment, in order to fall under the "sewage" requiring approval under the Motor Vehicle Management Act (affirmative)

Article 2 subparagraph 11 of the Automobile Management Act, Article 34 and Article 81 subparagraph 20 of the Automobile Management Act, Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Automobile Management Act, Article 55 of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Management Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorneys Son Ji-yol et al.

Daegu District Court Decision 2016No1006 decided January 13, 2017

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant operated a stackd motor vehicle by fixing the freezing container as aground on the family transformingr owned by the Defendant without obtaining the approval of the head of the Si/Gun/Gu.

As to this, the court below reversed the judgment of the first instance which acquitted the Defendant on the ground that the freezing container was used as a whole by combining it with structural and intended purposes, and that it actually increased the length or height of the cryr, thereby fixing the freezing container on the cryr constitutes the "motor vehicle crypting" under the Automobile Management Act, by adding attached objects to the motor vehicle, and thereby constituting the "motor vehicle crying" under the Motor Vehicle Management Act, and convicted the Defendant of the charges.

2. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

A. Article 2(11) of the Motor Vehicle Management Act provides for “the alteration of part of the structure and device of a motor vehicle or the addition of an attachment to a motor vehicle” as “the alteration of the structure and device of a motor vehicle, or the addition of an attachment to a motor vehicle,” and Article 8(the structure and device of a motor vehicle) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and Article 55(the subject of approval and approval standard) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provides for the alteration

Therefore, in order to fall under the tubes requiring the approval of the Automobile Management Act, it is necessary to change part of the structure and devices of the automobile due to the act regardless of whether the defendant's act constitutes the addition of attached objects.

B. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following facts.

(1) The instant clurburburbler, where necessary, can increase its length. The instant clurbr is of a size that can be loaded on the clurbr whose length is extended, and it is possible to operate independently even if it is separated from the clurbler, even if it is separated from the clurbr, because the freezing is installed separately at the freezing and lower end of the freezing container.

(2) The freezing of this case is fixed with six lockers with six lockers, but it is possible to separate the locker from the locker immediately when it is loaded with a freezing container.

(3) 3 10 % of the clater's clater's clater's clater's clor's clor's clor's clor's clor's clor's

(4) The instant scraper is included only in the subject of the Automobile Management Act since its registration of the motor vehicle, and the container loaded above is not included in the subject of the inspection.

(5) In addition to those on which the freezing of a container is loaded at turb, there is no change in the structure and device of the freezing container itself due to the loading of the freezing container.

C. In light of the following circumstances revealed through the above facts and records, it is difficult to view that the circumstances determined by the lower court alone, solely based on the circumstance that the instant freezing container was combined with the Trrr and changed to the structure and device of Trrrr.

(1) The instant freezing containers are able to separate and combine with bitlers within a water minute when only six locking devices are operated. Although the instant freezing containers are to be used to separate and combine, this is not because it is difficult to separate the freezing containers due to the reason that the freezing containers do not have the weight that people can get out of. The same applies to the six locking devices, which are only the minimum fixed device to prevent the separation and removal of the freezing containers during operation, and the other containers also need to be installed for the separation and breaking of the containers. Accordingly, the instant freezing containers should be deemed to have been loaded in a state where they can easily be separated and combined.

(2) The circumstances that the freezing container of this case cannot be loaded in a way that they overlap with ordinary containers after separation of the freezing container of this case, or that there is a need for a separate subsidence of the container, are irrelevant to the issues as to whether the freezing container can be separated and combined easily with turler after separation.

(3) The lower court cited the circumstance in which a freezing container was used without separation of a long-term freezing container as one of the grounds for its entirety by combining it with the instant wingler. However, this is not due to the fact that it was not necessary to separate the freezing container, but it was difficult to separate the freezing container by combining it with the freezingr. Rather, as seen earlier, the Defendant, if necessary, can easily separate it from the wingler.

(4) The fact that the Defendant installed a light device in the freezing containers of this case is also installed in accordance with the conditions of permission stipulated in subparagraph 7 of the “limited vehicle operation permit” received from the head of ○○○○○, and it cannot be deemed as the grounds for combining the freezing containers with the freezing containers.

(5) Traler’s original purpose is to load a container. Therefore, it is difficult to avoid the problem of manufacturing a container more customized than ordinary containers to ensure the stable loading of a container with a maximum capacity to the extent that the relevant statute does not violate. Even if the relevant statute violated the standards, such an act can only be punished in accordance with the relevant law and regulations, and cannot be deemed as having been done based on such a violation.

D. Although it is difficult to see that any change has occurred in the structure and devices of the instant trrrr, with the loading of a container, the lower court convicted him of the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court erred by violating the rules of evidence, exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “motor vehicle trping

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim So-young (Presiding Justice)