logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.08.09 2019고정1395
자동차관리법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 300,000 won.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Reasons

Criminal facts

At around 14:20 on April 5, 2019, the Defendant was unable to cover a registration license plate or make it illegible, and even if he was not operating such a motor vehicle, the Defendant intentionally made it difficult to identify a registration license plate by attaching a white paper with “E” in front of the Dsan Preferred Motor Vehicle in front of the resident priority parking zone located in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Jongno-gu, Seoul, and attaching a white paper on the registration license plate, which read “E” to avoid parking control.

Summary of Evidence

1. A statement to the effect that the Defendant had attached a white paper in the form of “E” to the registration license plate at the time and at the time and at the location of the ruling, before and after the D-U.S. car as shown in its holding

1. Photographs of the controlling vehicle;

1. Application of the register of automobiles (D) and the register of automobiles (E) legislation

1. Article 81 subparagraph 1-2 of the Motor Vehicle Management Act, Articles 81 and 10 (5) of the same Act concerning facts constituting an offense, the selection of fines;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The Defendant’s and his defense counsel’s assertion that his vehicle (E) parked in the resident priority parking zone was destroyed by a traffic accident and the other vehicle (D), and then attached a white paper stating “E” to the front of the said siren vehicle and the subsequent registration number plate to park the said siren vehicle in the resident priority parking zone. As such, the above Defendant’s act constitutes a case where it was conducted without any intention to obstruct or avoid it in a private place regardless of efficient management of the vehicle, ensuring the performance and safety of the vehicle, and regulating traffic and traffic crimes, and thus does not constitute a violation of the Automobile Management Act.

2. The following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court.

(a)the resident preferential parking system is to establish a parking order for housing prices;

arrow