logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2017.02.03 2016고정973
자동차관리법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who engages in the extra-motor vehicle management business in the name of "C" from the Jeonjin-gu Seoul Metropolitan City B1.

Any person who intends to conduct a motor vehicle management business shall register with the head of a Si/Gun/Gu.

Nevertheless, at around 10:30 on July 15, 2016, the Defendant, without registering, conducted painting work to prevent corrosion at the lower portion of the Drash car at the above C workplace, and received KRW 2.50,000 from the Defendant.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. E statements;

1. A written accusation;

1. Answers to inquiries by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport;

1. C business registration certificate;

1. On-the-spot photographs of a holyer;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to photographing materials of a cryr;

1. Article 79 subparagraph 13 of the Automobile Management Act and Article 53 (1) of the same Act concerning facts constituting an offense and Articles 79 and 53 (1) of the same Act (Selection of penalty);

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Since the words and phrases executed by the Defendant do not fall under the seals prescribed by the Automobile Management Act, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant carried on the unregistered automobile management business.

2. According to the evidence revealed earlier, the Defendant’s words and/or specifications executed by the Defendant, citing a vehicle by using a lifts, and then, can be known that the Defendant’s operation of melting paints to prevent melting the body of the vehicle. As alleged by the Defendant, there is a difference in the type of paints or the method of spraying paints compared with the general painting work on the body of the vehicle, as alleged by the Defendant.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that it is not included in the automobile maintenance business that requires registration under the Automobile Management Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do12994, Jan. 12, 2017). The Automobile Management Act intended to prevent unregistered vehicle management business with reason for sentencing, thereby ensuring public safety.

arrow