2016Do2689 Violation of the Automobile Management Act

A person shall be appointed.

Defendant

Attorney B

Busan District Court Decision 2015No2756 Decided January 28, 2016

October 27, 2016

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Summary of the facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below

The summary of the facts charged in the instant case changed at the lower court is that the Defendant engaged in the automobile maintenance business by installing a campus (referring to a house space for camping) in five freight cars from March 2013 to March 2014 without registering the automobile maintenance business.

The court below found the defendant guilty on the ground that the part of the camp of this case was set up within a canter, the upper part of the camp of this case was 15cc right, 50cc right, right, right, right, and right, and right, and 50cc right, the upper part of the truck was set up in line with the upper part of the boarding space in excess of the truck's loading, so only a specific type of cargo vehicle is allowed to be used to report the camp. ② No access to the camp is allowed; ③ in order to separate the camp from the campus, it is sufficient for people to sit or sound, ③ in order to connect the campingus with the campus, and move the truck by using the clock support stand to the campus to the front part, and it is hard to see that the defendant violated the Motor Vehicle Management Act's act of installing the camp of this case as well as the driver of the truck of this case, and thus, it is difficult to see that the defendant's act of installing the camp of this case was the same time as the driver of the truck of this case.

2. Judgment of the Supreme Court

As alleged in the grounds of appeal, the Motor Vehicle Management Act, which newly establishes a definition provision for motor vehicle mining, and punishs a person who operates motor vehicle business without registering the motor vehicle maintenance business, was amended by Act No. 12217, Jan. 7, 2014. According to the provisions of the Addenda, the said amended Act was enforced from January 8, 2015, i.e., when one year has passed after its promulgation, and thus, there is no room to apply in this case.

However, the alteration of the structure and devices of a motor vehicle under Article 2 subparagraph 8 of the former Motor Vehicle Management Act (amended by Act No. 12217, Jan. 7, 2014; hereinafter the same) includes the alteration of the vehicle boarding device and the cargo loading device. In light of the records as stated in the judgment of the court below, the Defendant’s act of installing a "fixed type (joint type) camping machine" which is not easy to separate the motor vehicle constitutes the alteration of the goods loading device of the motor vehicle under Article 8 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Motor Vehicle Management Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26588, Oct. 13, 2015) and so long as the Defendant engaged in such act as a business, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant is subject to registration of the motor vehicle maintenance business under Articles 2 subparagraph 8 and 53 of the former Motor Vehicle Management Act. Even if the judgment of the court below is partially inappropriate due to its reasoning, it is justified in the conclusion that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case.

Therefore, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of violating the Automobile Management Act due to the operation of unregistered automobile maintenance business, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Conclusion

The appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-deok

Justices Kim Jae-han

Justices Kim So-young

Justices Lee Dong-won