The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is the owner of a “B” TGX Track Track and operates the said vehicle by entering the said vehicle into “D” (the same day non-prosecution) with its head office in Busan Nam-gu C.

No one may dismantle an electrical and electronic device (limited to a maximum speed restriction device) on a motor vehicle without permission, but the defendant, around March 2017, dismantled-gu, Cheongju-si, dismantled-gu, dismantled-gu, dismantled-gu “F cargo parking lot” with cash 350,000 won, and dismantled without permission, 90km-limits per hour at the maximum speed limit of the cargo vehicle.

2. According to the records of the instant case, the Defendant may recognize the fact that he/she fabricated data on the maximum speed limitation devices of the Defendant’s driving vehicle at the date and place specified in the facts charged.

However, Article 79(5)-2 of the former Automobile Management Act (amended by Act No. 15321, Dec. 26, 2017) provides that “a person who dismantles electric and electronic devices without permission in violation of Article 35 (limited to the maximum speed limitation device)” shall be punished. Meanwhile, the interpretation of penal provisions shall be strict, and the interpretation of penal provisions excessively extending or interpreting the meaning of express provisions in the direction unfavorable to the defendant shall not be permitted in accordance with the principle of no crime without the law. “Dismantling” prohibited under the Motor Vehicle Management Act refers to the act of physically removing a motor vehicle or its device, and it is difficult to view that the act of manipulating the maximum speed limit data, which is an electrical and electronic device, is “de-breaking” a motor vehicle or electronic device prohibited under the Motor Vehicle Management Act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2018No1888 Decided November 9, 2018, etc.). 3. In conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the facts charged in this case is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the judgment of innocence under the proviso of Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act.