Of the facts charged in this case, the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (Bodily Injury).

Any person who intends to operate construction machinery shall obtain a construction machinery operator's license from a competent authority.

Nevertheless, around 15:30 on November 19, 2018, the Defendant stated that the charges of operating construction machinery 1.5t, a construction machinery, without obtaining a construction machinery operator's license in the Daegu-dong-gu B'C' parking lot, are "driving", but the Defendant corrected it to "a type" in accordance with the Construction Machinery Management Act.

Summary of Evidence

1. Written statements of D;

1. Images of CCTV images bound in a police investigation report;

1. The defendant and his/her defense counsel asserted that "First, the defendant and his/her defense counsel stated that "(1) the driver's license holder under the Road Traffic Act constitutes construction machinery that can operate, and the driver's license holder under the first class ordinary driving license holder under the Road Traffic Act does not violate Article 26 of the Construction Machinery Management Act since he/she was "driving", and even if he/she is not so, it constitutes a mistake in the law under Article 16 of the Criminal Act since there are justifiable grounds for misunderstanding that he/she is not a crime under the Act and subordinate statutes." First, the defendant and his/her defense counsel stated that the driver's license holder under subparagraph 1 of Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Construction Machinery Management Act is a construction machinery, but the place of the judgment is a parking lot, but the parking lot is adjacent to the parking lot under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act, and it constitutes a public road under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Road Act or a parking lot under Article 2 (d) of the Road Act.