logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.10.07 2015고정1590
자동차관리법위반
Text

Defendants shall be punished by each fine of KRW 7,000,000.

Defendant

If A does not pay the above fine, it shall be 100.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. From December 27, 2012 to July 15, 2014, Defendant A installed a 105 automobile structure from “stock company B”, which is operated by Defendant A, without registering with the competent authority, and installed a wing wing wing wing wing (Loading and closing device) of Category D owned E 12.5 tons, and received KRW 17,00,000 in return. Defendant A received KRW 105 in total from December 27, 2012 to July 15, 2014 from “B” to “B”, and received KRW 1,490,500,000 from the owner of the vehicle and received KRW 1,49,50 from the owner of the vehicle.

2. Defendant B, a corporation established for the purpose of manufacturing and selling special vehicles, and Defendant A, an employee, committed an act of violating the automobile management business without registering his business with the competent authority as described in paragraph (1).

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (the vehicles with the structural change and the special business entities involved);

1. Article 79 subparagraph 13 of the Automobile Management Act and Article 53 (1) (hereafter collectively referred to as “Defendant A”): Defendant B, a stock company, and a fine: Articles 83, 79 subparagraph 13 and 53 (1) of the Automobile Management Act;

1. Defendant A at a workhouse: Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: The following should be taken into account: (a) the Defendants reflects the reasons for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act; (b) the registration of the automobile maintenance business was made after the discovery; and (c) the manufacturers of the special vehicles have committed a violation in practice.

However, in light of the fact that Defendant A prepared documents as if he had engaged in structural change in the automobile maintenance business registered through F at the time of the commission of the violation, it is difficult to view that the perception of illegality was weak, the period of the crime is long and the number of times is high.

arrow