Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

An automobile shall be operated by a person entrusted with the operation, etc. of an automobile by an owner of the automobile or an owner of the automobile.

Notwithstanding that the Defendant did not have been entrusted with matters concerning the operation, etc. of the said motor vehicle from the owner of BMW motor vehicle (hereinafter “instant motor vehicle”), on September 4, 2019, around 15:40, the Defendant operated the said motor vehicle from around 4km to the roads in front of the “E” located in Namdong-gu, Incheon, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Incheon, and from November 2018 to the said temporary date.

Summary of Evidence

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a criminal defendant's partial legal statement, investigation report (Attachment to the Motor Vehicle Register), investigation report (to telephone conversations), investigation report (to telephone conversations in the name of a vehicle);

1. Article 81-7-2 of the Automobile Management Act and Articles 24-2 (1) of the same Act concerning facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the argument is as follows: C, the owner of the instant vehicle, borrowed money from F as collateral, delivered a “vehicle driving angle” with the buyer’s disturbance, and expressed his intention to entrust the instant vehicle operation, etc. by comprehensively operating the instant vehicle; and the Defendant borrowed money to F and received the said “vehicle driving angle”.

Therefore, the Defendant is entrusted to operate the instant motor vehicle by the owner.

2. In light of the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court, the delivery of “vehicle operation angle” in the aforementioned form cannot be deemed as a valid comprehensive declaration of intent to entrust the operation of the instant motor vehicle by C, and otherwise, the Defendant was entrusted by C with the operation of the instant motor vehicle.