In a case where Defendants were indicted for violating the Automobile Management Act on the ground that they operated a unregistered automobile trading business by arranging the sale and purchase of a truck, which is a truck which is a car of Gap corporation, without registering with the competent authorities, between Eul and Byung, the case affirming the judgment below which found the Defendants guilty on the ground that the Defendants’ act of mediating the sale and purchase of the above truck, on the ground that it included the act of arranging the sale and purchase of the truck from the former owner operator Eul to Byung, was included.

Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 2 subparag. 7, 6, 12(2), 53(1), and 79 subparag. 3 (see current Article 79 subparag. 13) of the former Automobile Management Act (Amended by Act No. 11588, Dec. 18, 2012);

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Suwon District Court Decision 2015No1002 decided October 30, 2015

All appeals are dismissed. Article 79 Subparag. 13 of the Automobile Management Act is amended to Article 79 Subparag. 3 of the former Automobile Management Act (amended by Act No. 11588, Dec. 18, 2012) “Article 79 Subparag. 3 of the former Automobile Management Act” in the part of “Application of the Act” as “Article 79 Subparag. 3 of the former Automobile Management Act.”

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court found the Defendants guilty of the instant charges on the grounds that the Defendants’ act of mediating the former owner of the instant truck from Nonindicted 1 to Nonindicted 2 was included in the act of arranging the sale and purchase of a motor vehicle between them. While examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “motor vehicle transaction business” in its violation of the Automobile Management Act due to the violation of the principle of free evaluation of evidence inconsistent with logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench, on the ground that Article 79 subparag. 13 of the Automobile Management Act (amended by Act No. 11588, Dec. 18, 2012) is an erroneous entry under Article 79 subparag. 3 of the former Automobile Management Act (amended by Act No. 11588, Dec. 18, 2012).

Justices Jo Hee-de (Presiding Justice)