Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

Although the Defendant, at the Tae-dong, Tae-gu, Tae-dong, Tae-gu, Daegu on August 2015, transferred the BM7 car volume to approximately four million won from a person without his/her name, the Defendant did not file an application for registration of transfer of the ownership of a motor vehicle without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the prosecution against C;

1. Application of the motor vehicle registration ledger and the motor vehicle registration certificate statutes;

1. Article 81 subparagraph 2 of the relevant Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, and Articles 81 and 12 (1) of the Automobile Management Act (opportune selection);

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The portion not guilty under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which is the order of provisional payment;

1. A Mayor/Do Governor or the head of a Si/Gun/Gu who has not been entrusted with the operation, etc. of a motor vehicle by a motor vehicle owner or a person who owns the motor vehicle without justifiable grounds, may order the suspension of operation of the relevant motor vehicle upon consent or request from the owner;

On August 13, 2016, around 01:35, the Defendant reported a large-sized lane on January 9, 2013. On October 28, 2013 of the same year, the fact was registered, and on April 26, 2016, the Defendant operated the said vehicle at approximately 12 km away from the front city road located in Daegu-gu, where the head of Daegu-gu Office publicly announced to suspend operation on April 26, 2016.

2. According to the records of the instant case, the fact that an order to suspend operation under Article 24-2 of the Automobile Management Act was registered in the said BST7 vehicle registration ledger on April 26, 2016, and the Defendant thereafter discovered that he/she was operating the said vehicle on August 13, 2016, respectively.

However, the defendant did not know that an order to suspend the operation of the above vehicle was issued by the defendant.

As the defendant asserted, it is around August 2015 that the defendant started to operate the above vehicle with delivery from the person in the name of the defendant.