Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 400,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On September 23, 2016, from around November 23, 2016 to around November 1, 2016, the Defendant without permission installed in front of the Goyang-gu C road, etc., and operated a DNA New Tourism bus without any maintenance of the speed limit system, street system, and other devices such as the meters of automobiles.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the motor vehicle registration ledger, notification of non-inspection failure, each comprehensive medical certificate for motor vehicle functions;

1. Article 153 (1) 1 and Article 40 of the Road Traffic Act applicable to the facts constituting a crime and Articles 153 (1) 1 and 40 of the same Act applicable to the selective punishment;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Division of a crime under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which is against the order of provisional payment;

1. The Defendant: (a) around October 2016, at the end of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, dismantled an electrical device with a maximum speed limitation system, which has been installed without permission for D’s new tourism bus in the street near Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul; (b) caused workers without permission to dismantle it.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the defendant was classified as subject to re-inspection on September 23, 2016 after purchasing the above tourist bus with a heavy lane and undergoing a comprehensive motor vehicle inspection on September 23, 2016. Accordingly, the defendant was found to have passed a re-inspection on October 2016 by leaving off the repair of the above maximum speed limitation device to employees in a situation where the operation of the highest speed restriction device is inappropriate, etc., and the defendant was found to have passed the re-inspection on November 1, 2016. However, even though he was found to have passed the re-inspection on October 2016, he removed the above system without permission (the defendant passed the re-inspection, and the police officer also used the expression "re-inspection" while investigating the defendant).

There is no evidence to prove that there is no evidence.

Therefore, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 58 (2) of the Criminal Act.