logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2015.06.10 2015고단959
자동차관리법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 200,000 won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the amount of KRW 100,000 shall be paid.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who actually owns and operates CYF rocketing and other automobiles.

Where the owner of a motor vehicle intends to change the structure and devices of a motor vehicle prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, he/she shall

Nevertheless, the Defendant, without the approval of the competent authorities, changed the structure by altering and installing the headlights in order to secure the electric view of the said vehicle from the fluence company located in Ansan-gu, Annsan-si, Annsan-si on June 2012 in order to secure the electric view of the said vehicle.

After that, the Defendant, while being aware that the vehicle was modified from the above date to February 24, 2015, operated the said vehicle with knowledge that it was a change in its structure.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Reporting on occurrence of an automobile management Act;

1. Photographs of the violating vehicle;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report internal investigation and telephone communications for witnesses;

1. Article 81 Subparag. 19 of the Motor Vehicle Management Act - Articles 81 Subparag. 19 and 34(1) of the Motor Vehicle Management Act (the right to have installed a motor vehicle without approval) - Articles 81 Subparag. 20 and 34(1) of the Motor Vehicle Management Act (the right to operate a motor vehicle with knowledge that it is a motor vehicle which has been

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

1. Taking into account all the circumstances, such as the reason for sentencing under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act, the background leading to the Defendant’s occurrence of the instant case, the sales after the Defendant’s restitution of the instant motor vehicle, and the fact that the Defendant had no record of committing a crime.

arrow