beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.
Defendant
A. The remaining Defendants’ appeal is not guilty.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A, D, E, F, G, and H’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the existence of a store registered as a product, but did not examine whether a motor vehicle registered as a product exists in the store, and determined that the motor vehicle registered as a product was an advertisement of a false article that does not exist in the store. The advertisement of a false article does not constitute providing “the history of the motor vehicle and the seller’s information” under Article 80 subparag. 7-2 of the Automobile Management Act. Even if there is a difference between the seller and the actual counsel, the advertisement of a false article does not constitute providing false information on the seller. 2) The said Defendants did not compete with
B. Defendant A’s assertion of unfair sentencing by the lower court (a fine of two million won) is too unreasonable.
C. Defendant B and C’s misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles 1) The above Defendants are not motor vehicle dealers. 2) The above Defendants did not conspired with other co-defendants.
2. Determination
A. Determination as to the assertion that each of the instant advertisements did not constitute a violation of Article 80 subparag. 7-2 and Article 58(3) of the former Automobile Management Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11588, Dec. 18, 2012; hereinafter the same) is the purport of newly establishing Article 58(3) of the former Automobile Management Act to relieve consumers from inconvenience and damage caused by the registration of fraudulent baits in the Internet advertisement of the motor vehicle dealer and to prevent consumer damage by providing sufficient information on the relevant motor vehicle. According to Articles 80 subparag. 7-2 and 58(3) of the former Motor Vehicle Management Act, Article 120(4) of the former Enforcement Rule of the former Motor Vehicle Management Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11588, Mar. 23, 2013).