logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 평택지원 2017.10.19 2016고정648
자동차관리법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is the owner of CMW 528i vehicle.

A person who takes over a registered motor vehicle shall file an application for the registration of transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle with the Mayor/Do Governor within 15 days from the

Nevertheless, on May 16, 2014, the Defendant did not apply for the registration of transfer of ownership within 15 days after purchasing the said vehicle in front of the 3rd Dong Dong Dong-dong.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. The motor vehicle registration ledger;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes regarding mandatory insurance;

1. Article 81 of the relevant Act concerning criminal facts, and Articles 81 subparagraph 2 and 12 (1) of the Automobile Management Act concerning the selective punishment, and the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. We examine whether the defendant's judgment on the issue of Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order corresponds to "the transferee of a motor vehicle" under Article 12 (1) of the Automobile Management Act.

On May 15, 2014, the Defendant paid KRW 13.5 million to D, and continued to operate the vehicle after receiving the vehicle.

The Defendant introduced, at the police station, a vehicle in which a person working at an industrial company can leave the vehicle. On May 2014, the Defendant transferred KRW 13.5 million to the account designated by D and received the vehicle.

was stated.

The defendant did not prepare any document with D while taking over the vehicle as above, and did not directly contact E with the person in the name of the vehicle.

Even according to the defendant's assertion, the defendant did not receive a written consent from D to use a motor vehicle in the name of the owner E, a certificate of seal impression, etc., and there was no document to the effect that E consents to the transfer of a motor vehicle to the defendant.

The Defendant did not receive a loan certificate from D, did not agree with D to pay interest on the loan, and did not demand D to pay the loan.

arrow