beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. No one who is a summary of the facts charged shall operate a motor vehicle knowing that the structure relating to the length, width, and height of the motor vehicle is, without obtaining approval from the competent authority, and without obtaining approval from the competent authority;
Nevertheless, on August 25, 2017, the Defendant operated the CMW 520 d car, which was tubesd in the manner of protruding out and being used more than the body of the vehicle, without obtaining the approval of the competent authority, from the non-permanent area (hereinafter referred to as "Seoul") around 25, 2017.
2. In light of the determination, Article 34 of the Automobile Management Act provides that the owner of a motor vehicle shall obtain the approval of the Mayor, etc. in cases where the owner of the motor vehicle intends to conduct the tubes concerning the items prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (Article 3). As to the approval criteria, Article 34 of the said Act provides that a person who knows that the motor vehicle has been installed in violation of Article 34 of the said Act shall be punished (Article 81 subparagraph 20). Accordingly, the said provision requires the Mayor, etc. to approve “the structural change related to the length, width, and height of the motor vehicle” in Article 8(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Motor Vehicle Management Act and Article 55(1)1 of the said Enforcement Rule.
With respect to the instant case, the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the instant car was protruding out more than the body of the vehicle, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
Rather, according to the evidence No. 3 (the photo) submitted by the defendant by his defense counsel, the distribution agency, which the defendant cird, did not stick more than the body of the vehicle.
On the other hand, the pipes of this case can be seen as a simple statement that does not require approval.
3. In conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.