도로교통법위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed, respectively.
A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 400,000 won.
The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In the event that the Defendant knew that there was no proper sign on the motorway near the inside circular road in which he drives a Oralba, it was difficult to change the course due to other vehicles. Therefore, it was inevitable to enter and drive the said road.
B. The punishment sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing (the first instance court's 300,000 won, the second instance court's 200,000 won) is too unreasonable.
2. Upon ex officio determination, the first and second court sentenced the defendant to a fine of KRW 300,00 and a fine of KRW 200,000,000,000,000, and the court of the first and second instance decided to concurrently deliberate on each appellate case in which the defendant filed an appeal against each of the above judgments, and the court of the first and second instance decided to jointly deliberate on the above two appellate cases. Since each of the offenses against the defendant is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, it shall be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment aggravated for concurrent crimes under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court below against the defendant shall be sentenced to a single sentence. In this regard, all of the appeals against the defendant cannot be exempted
However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal.
3. The following circumstances can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles. In other words, even if the Defendant’s assertion is based on the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant appears to have known at the time of entering the internal cycle and immediately after the entry into the exclusive motorway and that the passage of two-wheeled automobile is prohibited. Nevertheless, the Defendant made a request for rescue and relief on the sideway.