logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2014.07.15 2014고단371
공기호위조
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. Around February 14, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around 14:00, the Defendant: (b) had a front registration number plate of the freight vehicle Fckeer (hereinafter “instant freight vehicle”); (c) had no front registration number plate of the instant freight vehicle which he had been requested to repair from E; (d) had an intent to forge it; (c) had a registration license plate of the G vehicle being kept in custody on the front, removed the registration license plate of the said G vehicle; and (d) had a white cover on the front page of the instant freight vehicle and attached it to the front of the instant freight vehicle; and (d) had the Defendant forged the air-ho vehicle registration number plate for the purpose of exercising its right.

2. We examine the judgment, and the illegal use of a motor vehicle registration number plate which is an air defenseer under Article 238(1) of the Criminal Act refers to an act of unreasonably using the motor vehicle registration number plate which is substantially made by a person without authority or by abuse of authority even by a person with authority. The crime of exercising the motor vehicle registration number plate under Article 238(2) of the Criminal Act refers to the act of using it in accordance with the unlawful method as if it was genuine.

An exercise which is an act of using a motor vehicle registration number plate pursuant to the usage of the motor vehicle registration plate refers to the operation of a motor vehicle in a condition that makes it possible for the general public to mislead the identity of the motor vehicle by attaching it to the motor vehicle, i.e., the operation of the motor vehicle where it is attached, and it cannot be deemed that the crime of exercising the right is established only when the motor vehicle registration

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do5233 Decided September 28, 2006, and Supreme Court Decision 96Do3319 Decided July 8, 1997, etc.). In addition, the purport of the above legal doctrine is to interpret the crime of forging air, which is stipulated in Article 238(1) of the Criminal Act, can only be applied where the air defense, etc. is forged.

arrow