Whether a person may be punished for a violation of the former Medium-Term Management Act in cases where the maintenance order issued is violated due to a failure to pass a regular inspection on the cater that has lost the function as a cater;

As at the time of regular inspection, it has lost its function as a digging machine. However, it cannot be deemed that the digging season in a state where only a mid-term registration has not been cancelled is subject to regular inspection. Thus, even if it has violated the maintenance order issued due to a failure to pass a regular inspection, it cannot be punished for a violation of Article 34 subparagraph 3 or Article 12 (4) of the former mid-term Management Act (amended by the Construction Machinery Management Act by Act No. 4561 of Jun. 11, 1993).

Articles 12 and 34 subparag. 3 of the former Mid-Term Management Act (wholly amended by Act No. 4561 of Jun. 11, 1993)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daegu District Court Decision 95No734 delivered on October 13, 1995

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below reversed the judgment of the court of first instance that found the defendant guilty on the ground that the excavation season of this case was already dismantled at the time of April 1992, 192, the regular inspection date, and lost its function as the extraction season, but did not cancel the mid-term registration, and in such case, the excavation season cannot be deemed as a mid-term inspection subject to regular inspection, and even if it violated the maintenance order issued by failing to pass an inspection, it cannot be punished as a violation of subparagraph 3 of Article 34 and Article 12 (4) of the Mid-Term Management Act (amended by Act No. 4561 of Jun. 11, 1993). In light of related evidence and records, the court below's fact finding and judgment are fully acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, such as theory of lawsuit, and there is no violation of rules of evidence.

In addition, we cannot accept the judgment of the court below on the basis of the facts contrary to the recognition of the court below, which argued that the excavation period in this case was merely not used as a temporary disability at that time, and that the owner, etc. was the intention to continue to use it.

All arguments are without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)