logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2020.12.09 2020고정705
자동차관리법위반
Text

A fine of two million won shall be imposed on a defendant.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one million won shall be the one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who is engaged in the redevelopment business and is not aware of the fact that he is the owner of Benz vehicle.

An automobile owner or a person entrusted with matters concerning the operation, etc. of automobiles shall operate the automobile.

On April 13, 2020, the Defendant was not entrusted with matters concerning vehicle operation, etc. by C, the owner of the above benz, and operated the above vehicle from Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D (E) to the same Gu F (Housing) parking lot.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement (the statement that he/she temporarily drives the same as the facts constituting the crime on the market);

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. Application of the register of automobiles, handwritten and control photographic Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 81 of the Automobile Management Act applicable to criminal facts, Articles 81-7-2 and 24-2 (1) of the Motor Vehicle Management Act, the selection of fines;

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

1. Grounds for the main sentence of Article 186 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act to bear litigation costs under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and the reasons for sentencing;

1. The Defendant asserts that no vehicle was operated.

Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Automobile Management Act provides that "operation" means the use of a motor vehicle according to its usage, regardless of whether a person or freight is transported, and the act of driving a motor vehicle for mobile parking is also the use of the motor vehicle in accordance with its usage.

The Defendant, while denying that he only driven the above vehicle while driving the vehicle, did not have a person drive it, had him make a false statement on the ground of H as a witness, and argued that the facts of driving the vehicle for the purpose of the vehicle for the purpose of the vehicle for the purpose of the vehicle for the purpose of the vehicle for the purpose of the vehicle for the purpose of the flight after he appeared as a witness, was not operated even. On the other hand, when considering the circumstances such as the fact that the above benz is registered as an order to suspend

arrow