(영문) 대법원 2021.6.24. 선고 2019도110 판결

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant, without obtaining the approval of the head of Si/Gun/Gu, installed a residential space for camping (hereinafter referred to as “instant campus”) to load a truck owned by the Defendant, and installed the motor vehicle.

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court found the instant charges guilty on the ground that the installation of the instant campus constituted “motor vehicle mechanic” as an act that results in the same result as changing the structure and devices of the motor vehicle by adding attached objects to the motor vehicle.

2. However, the lower court’s determination is unreasonable.

A. Article 2 subparag. 11 of the Motor Vehicle Management Act defines “motor vehicle dismantling” as “a partial alteration of the structure and device of a motor vehicle or an attachment to a motor vehicle,” and Article 34(1) provides that an owner of the motor vehicle shall obtain approval from the head of the relevant Si/Gun/Gu in cases where he/she intends to conduct the tubes on the items prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Motor Vehicle Management Act and Article 55 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provide that “the alteration of the former steering system that requires approval from the head of the relevant Si/Gun/Gu, such as the length, height, and total weight,” and Article 81 subparag. 19 of the Motor Vehicle Management Act provides that a person who has conducted the tubes on a motor vehicle without obtaining approval from the head of the relevant Si/Gun/Gu shall be punished

In light of the aforementioned relevant provisions and the legislative intent thereof and the principle of no punishment without law that requires clarity in penal laws or strict interpretation, “motor vehicle navigation” ought to be construed as “cases where the structure and devices of a motor vehicle, the performance and standards necessary for the safe operation of a motor vehicle are partially modified or where a motor vehicle attachment is added to a motor vehicle, thereby resulting in partial alteration of the structure and devices of the motor vehicle” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2017Do1589, Jul. 12, 2018; 2017Hun-Ga23, Nov. 28, 2019).

B. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following facts.

1) The Defendant was merely fixed by connecting the instant campus with the truck in loaded the truck, and did not make any change in the loading box of the truck, etc.

2) The instant campus is possible to load or unload the campus in the loading of a truck by using a dynamic support unit, which is located in the campus itself without any separate equipment, using a dynamic support unit that is located in the campus itself.

3) Although it is impossible to separate the instant campus from the truck by human force, it is not due to the fact that the weight of the instant campus is not the degree to which people can find, and it is not due to the fact that the instant campus is "combined to the extent that it is difficult to separate from the truck."

4) The campus of this case can be used even after the loading of a truck, but can be independently used even after it is separated from a truck.

C. Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the installation of the instant campus on a truck does not constitute a “motor vehicle’s tubes”, since it cannot be deemed that the installation of a part of the structure and devices of the motor vehicle or an attachment that causes the same result. The reasons are as follows.

1) There is no change in the structure and devices of the instant truck in connection with the manufacture and installation of the instant campus. The instant campus was loaded and transported on the truck, and only used as camping equipment in a state of loading or separation on the truck. In order to prevent the instant campus from being separated from the truck, the truck was operated after fixing it on the truck by using the pedler, and the fixed method of using the said pedler does not require a change in the structure and devices of the truck.

2) The instant campus can easily load a truck within a short time using an electric dynamic support unit attached to the campus itself, and was fixed and operated after loading a truck by using an internship. As such, it cannot be deemed that the instant campus fixed in loading a truck constitutes an additional attachment resulting in partial alteration of the structure and devices of the motor vehicle.

3. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to 'motor vehicle tubes' under the Automobile Management Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The Defendant's ground

4. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal by the Defendant, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.