Defendant 1 and one other

Heal interference (public prosecutor acting on behalf of others, indictments), red civils (public trials)

Attorney Lee Mine-won (Korean)

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

When Defendant 1 fails to pay the above fine, the above defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period converted by KRW 50,000 into one day.

To order the Defendants to pay an amount equivalent to the above fines.

1. Defendant 1

The Defendant is a person who operates a 5-ton truck truck truck (vehicle number omitted) owned by Defendant 2.

No person shall operate an automobile unless it is registered in the register of automobiles.

Nevertheless, at around 15:10 on June 6, 2013, the Defendant: (a) operated a motor vehicle without registration by driving a distance of approximately 200 kilometers from the center of the Gun community located in the Gun center located in Gyeyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seocheon-gu to the central highway located in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-do, by driving the vehicle at around 200 kilometers from the center of the Gun community center located in the Gun community center.

2. Defendant 2 corporation

Defendant 1, an employee of the Defendant, committed a violation as stated in the above Paragraph 1 in relation to the duties of the Defendant at the time and place specified in the above Paragraph 1.

1. Legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 2

1. A protocol of partial police interrogation of the accused;

1. Copy of corporate register;

1. Each report on investigation;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

(a) Defendant 1: Article 80 subparag. 1, and Article 5 of the Automobile Management Act;

B. Defendant 2 corporation: Articles 83, 80 subparag. 1, and 5 of the Automobile Management Act

1. Selection of punishment (Defendant 1);

Selection of Fines

1. Detention in a workhouse (Defendant 1);

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Summary of the Defendants and their defense counsel’s assertion

The instant mobile toilets do not constitute “motor vehicles” under the Automobile Management Act, and in accordance with the relevant statutes, the instant mobile toilets cannot be registered as a motor vehicle, and thus, the Defendants cannot be deemed to have intentional or unlawful awareness.

2. Determination

Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Automobile Management Act provides that "motor vehicles means instruments manufactured for the purpose of movement on land by motor or instruments manufactured for the purpose of movement on land by being towed (hereinafter referred to as "motor vehicle"): Provided, That those prescribed by Presidential Decree shall be excluded; Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "construction machinery under the Construction Machinery Management Act (Article 1)" (Article 2 subparag. 1) "construction machinery under the Agricultural Mechanization Promotion Act (Article 2 subparag. 2)," "motor vehicles under the Act on the Management of Military Supplies (Article 3)" (Article 3), "vehicles operated by track or aerial railway (Article 4)" (Article 3 subparag. 4). Since Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Management Act provides that "motor vehicles shall be operated on land by motor or instruments manufactured for the purpose of movement on land" (Article 2 subparag. 4 of the Motor Vehicle Management Act). It appears that the Defendants' assertion that the operation of the mobile toilet in this case may meet the detailed standards for operation of the motor vehicle in this case can not be accepted.

Judges Cho Jae-in