logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2017.01.05 2016고정798
자동차관리법위반
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a person who actually operates C with a passenger car in C.

Where an owner of a motor vehicle intends to conduct the tubes on the items prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation of national land, he/she shall obtain approval from the head of the Si/Gun

Nevertheless, in January 2016, the Defendant, without obtaining the approval of the competent authority, remodeled part of the distribution engine of the vehicle into the coos vehicle C, and modified it by installing the “stack in the coos” in two holess, and operated the vehicles with structural modifications as above.

2. The Defendant asserts that the tubes installed in the above stack are items that need not be approved by the market.

Article 34 of the Motor Vehicle Management Act provides that the owner of a motor vehicle shall obtain approval from the Mayor, etc. (Article 1) when he/she intends to conduct the tubes on the items prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation for the traffic of national land, and the criteria for approval shall be prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (Article 3).

Accordingly, Article 55 of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Management Act is subject to approval of the structure and devices, etc. of a motor vehicle under Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, but it excludes minor structural devices determined and publicly announced by the Minister for Notification of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, such as the external change of the driver, and according to the attached Table 1 of Article 4 of the Regulations on the Change of Motor Vehicle Structure (Public Notice No. 2013-810 of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport Notice No. 2010), “the statement of the exhaustr in which the

In this case, according to the health stand and the record, the Defendant’s act of this case constitutes a minor change in the device that does not require the approval of the Mayor, etc. according to the above fact of recognition.

arrow