logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2013.12.06 2013노1302
자동차관리법위반
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. No owner or possessor of a motor vehicle in the summary of the facts charged in the instant case shall leave the motor vehicle alone on any other person's land without justifiable grounds;

Nevertheless, from around April 2003 to April 11, 2008, the Defendant left the Fcoon car owned by the Defendant, without permission, to D’s E located in the Hadong-dong, Chungcheongnamnam-gun.

2. The lower court determined that the Defendant was acquitted of the facts charged in this case on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant neglected the vehicle on another’s land without justifiable grounds, and that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3. In light of the overall circumstances of the grounds for appeal, it is reasonable to see that the Defendant has practically renounced ownership of the instant motor vehicle without any special management act. Therefore, the Defendant may recognize the fact that the motor vehicle was abandoned on another’s land without justifiable grounds.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

4. Article 81 Subparag. 3 and Article 26(1)3 of the Automobile Management Act provides that “an act of leaving a motor vehicle alone on another’s land without good cause” shall be punished.

The phrase "act of leaving a motor vehicle alone on another's land" refers to the case where it is recognized that the management of the motor vehicle is practically renounced by leaving the motor vehicle continuously parked on another's land without any special management act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1656 Decided March 25, 2010, etc.). According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the lower court and the first instance court, the Defendant destroyed a car owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant car”) due to a traffic accident on or around June 2003.

arrow