According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below found that her prompt-name son of this case was remodeled to make it more efficient to dry field, take over, take over, and transport an agricultural machine, and was manufactured in accordance with the device registered for the work lane for farming and fishing village in the Patent Office as of May 1, 1975, and the defendant also purchased for the purpose of farming and fishing village cultivation, compost transportation, etc. from among the day of his management and used mainly within the farm farm, and even if the above equipment inevitably moves on the road in light of its essential function and structure, it shall be deemed as agricultural machine under Article 2 of the Agricultural Mechanization Promotion Act, and it shall not be deemed as a motor vehicle under the Road Transport and Road Traffic Act and the Road Traffic Act, and therefore, the facts charged of this case on the premise that the equipment of this case is a motor vehicle under the Road Transport and Road Traffic Act and the Road Traffic Act, and there is no proof of a crime. The judgment below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the Road Transport and Road Traffic Act as alleged.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Byung-su (Presiding Justice)