The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is the owner of Ci30 Motor Vehicles (hereinafter “instant Motor Vehicles”).

Where the owner of a motor vehicle intends to conduct the tubes on the items prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation of the national land, he/she shall obtain approval from the competent authority, and shall not operate the tubes while knowing that they are the motor vehicles which have been installed without approval from the competent authority.

On October 2014, the Defendant, with knowledge that the noise level attached to the said vehicle has been arbitrarily changed from the time when he purchased the said vehicle to the police officer without the approval of the competent authorities, operated the said vehicle at the front of the station located in the 2nd line of Daegu Urban Railroad located in Seo-gu, Daegu from around 1 to March 1, 2016.

2. According to the evidence that corresponds to the facts charged in the instant case, D’s petition and the non-compliant vehicle photograph were used as evidence. According to the above evidence, around March 1, 2016, the fact that around March 1, 2016, the vehicle of this case was cut in the noise machine of the instant vehicle, and that the vehicle of this case was installed more than one “the exhauster tape” can be acknowledged.

① However, Article 55 of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Management Act, which simply installs a simple exhauster statement, is subject to approval of structures, devices, etc. under Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, but excludes minor structural devices determined and publicly notified by the Minister of Construction and Transportation, such as alteration of the appearance of a panmer, from those subject to approval. According to attached Table 1 of Article 4 of the Regulations on the Change of Motor Vehicle Structure (No. 2013-810 Notice of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport), “the exhauster statement that does not entail a change of noise” is excluded from those subject to approval by deeming minor structural devices

It is not related to the alteration of the structure of the noise apparatus (see the fourth public trial protocol), and ② the Defendant received the instant vehicle from E on March 4, 2016, and the noise equipment was deteriorated at the time of repair, and there was no change in the structure of the noise instrument, ③ the witness E’s legal statement that there was no change in the structure of the noise instrument, and the Defendant.