Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

However, the execution of the above fine for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who drives a two-wheeled motor vehicle B.

Where an owner of a motor vehicle intends to have a pipeline on the items prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, he/she shall obtain approval from the competent authority, and shall not operate a motor vehicle knowing that it has been installed without approval from the competent authority

Nevertheless, the Defendant, in early August 2014, operated a two-wheeled automobile, knowing that the noise prevention device of the said two-wheeled automobile was replaced without the approval of the competent authority, and that it was installed on October 2, 2019 without the approval of the competent authority, around October 13, 2019.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. A self-statement (number 2);

1. The ledger of driver's licenses of teas, mandatory insurance and cars;

1. The application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs (No. 3);

1. Article 81 Subparag. 19 and Article 34(1) of the former Automobile Management Act (amended by Act No. 13686, Dec. 29, 2015) (amended by Act No. 13686, Dec. 29, 2015) (amended by Act No. 13686) regarding criminal facts do not disadvantage the defendant to exercise his/her right to defense, and the applicable provisions of this Act

Article 81 Subparag. 20 of the Automobile Management Act and Article 34(1) of the Motor Vehicle Management Act (the point of illegally installed motor vehicle operation), the selection of each fine.

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. In light of the fact that there is no particular criminal history since 2008 under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution, there is no objective material that can be known that the Defendant had caused noise by unlawful tubes, but the Defendant did not control for a considerable period of time, the noise generated by the Defendant does not seem to have significant amount. At present, the Defendant is replaced with a net object and thus does not pose no risk of re-offending.