beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. No person prosecuted shall operate a motor vehicle ordered by the competent authority to suspend the operation;
Nevertheless, on December 8, 2016, the Defendant, who received an order to stop the operation from the time of the Gyeong-do Poon-do Pohang-do on December 8, 2016, operated C Launa-ta from the point of time to May 11, 2017.
2. The defendant and his defense counsel did not know that the defendant was an order to suspend operation of the instant vehicle.
The argument is asserted.
The following circumstances revealed by the evidence and records duly adopted and examined by the court, namely, the defendant paid KRW 7.2 million to D who is a motor vehicle sear on October 15, 2016, and purchased the instant motor vehicle and operated it with an insurance and take over the vehicle at that time, and D remitted 6 million won to E who is the owner of the same day after receiving the purchase price of the instant motor vehicle from the defendant, but the transfer registration procedure is not underway due to the difference in opinion due to the vehicle value. E received a penalty claim, etc. in relation to the instant motor vehicle while the procedure for the transfer registration was not in progress, E applied for the suspension of the operation of the instant motor vehicle on December 8, 2016, and the order for suspension of operation was entered in the motor vehicle registration ledger, but the order for suspension of operation was not separately notified to the driver other than the owner, so D could have known that the owner of the instant motor vehicle can be ordered to suspend the operation of the instant motor vehicle.
Comprehensively taking account of the facts stated, the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor that the Defendant knowingly operated the vehicle with knowledge of the order to suspend the operation of the instant vehicle.
Unlike the lack of recognition, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant had intention to violate the Motor Vehicle Management Act.
Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime.