beta
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2015.03.26 2014노1434

도로교통법위반

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant of mistake of facts merely entered the waterway motorway while driving a road that is not familiar with usual, and there is no intention to do so.

B. Article 63 of the Road Traffic Act which prohibits passage of a two-wheeled motor vehicle on a motorway for violating the Constitution is unconstitutional because it infringes on the freedom of passage and the right to equality under the Constitution, thereby punishing the defendant on this basis is unreasonable.

C. The fine of 200,000 won imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant is recognized to have operated a two-wheeled automobile by entering the motorway with the knowledge of the prohibition of operation of the two-wheeled automobile as an exclusive motorway (the Defendant was led to the confession of the facts charged at the police and the lower court).

In light of the structural characteristics of a two-wheeled vehicle's accident risk and importance of the result of the accident, the legitimacy of the legislative purpose and the means of prohibiting the passage of a two-wheeled vehicle for the safety of the driver of the two-wheeled vehicle and the speed and safety of the motor vehicle. Thus, even if the driving performance of a two-wheeled vehicle is not behind a two-wheeled vehicle, the risk of the accident and the gravity of the result of the accident arising from structural characteristics cannot be considered to be mitigated. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the two-wheeled vehicle comprehensively prohibits the passage without considering the driving performance of the two-wheeled vehicle as being unfairly or too unreasonable. Since the motorway is designated in cases where there are other roads for general traffic, it is difficult to see that the degree of infringement of fundamental rights is against the minimum principle of damage.