logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2013.09.12 2013노888
사기등
Text

All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the violation of the Automobile Management Act among the facts charged in the instant case, the Automobile Management Act imposes an obligation to transfer an automobile under the name of the owner of the automobile or transfer it to a third party, and penal regulations are penal regulations if the owner violates this provision. In light of the above provisions, the case where the defendant registers the vehicle that he/she acquired under the name of the third party without any justifiable reason and without registering it under his/her name shall constitute “a person who fails to file an application for the registration of transfer of automobile ownership without any justifiable reason” under Article 81 subparag. 2 of the Automobile Management Act, however, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the above facts charged, which

B. The grounds for appeal by the Defendant (justifiable assertion) by the lower court (one million won of a fine) are too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the prosecutor's grounds for appeal

A. Although a person who takes over a motor vehicle registered as a summary of this part of the facts charged files an application with the Mayor/Do Governor for the registration of transfer of the ownership of a motor vehicle, the Defendant, even though he/she acquired a B-E-E-E-E-Wood vehicle from Daejeon on December 27, 2010, did not complete

B. In full view of the fact that the Defendant took over the above vehicle and completed the registration of transfer by lending the name C, and that there is no provision prohibiting or punishing the registration of title trust under the Automobile Management Act, the lower court determined that the registered vehicle is not subject to punishment under Articles 81 subparag. 2 and 12(1) of the Automobile Management Act, and that there is no other evidence to acknowledge the above facts charged, and thus, acquitted this part of the facts charged on the ground that there is no evidence to prove the crime.

arrow