도로교통법위반(무면허운전)
1. The defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won;
2. If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 10,000 won.
Punishment of the crime
Although the Defendant was granted a license as of August 7, 2012 on no aptitude test and revoked on November 26, 2013, the Defendant started from the restaurant in front of the Yung-dong Seoul Seoul Metropolitan City, Mannam-si, Sungnam-si on November 26, 2013, and driven BNsi-si car at approximately 300 meters from the new school to the same new school.
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
2. The license ledger and the following inquiry;
3. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on conditional cancellation of driver's license;
1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal Facts and Articles 152 subparagraph 1 and 43 of the Road Traffic Act, the selection of fines and the selection of fines for the crime;
2. The defendant's assertion as to Article 70 and Article 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the confinement in the workhouse asserts that since the defendant was unable to be notified of the revocation of a driver's license and was driven without knowing that the driver's license was revoked, the defendant did not have an intention
The crime of violation of Article 152 subparagraph 1 and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act is a so-called intentional crime established only when a person drives a motor vehicle with knowledge that there is no valid driver's license. Even if a person drives a motor vehicle while the previous driver's license is revoked, it cannot be deemed as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving) unless the driver recognizes the cancellation of license. The police authority in charge
Even if so, it cannot be readily concluded that the driver was aware of the fact that the license was revoked. In this case, whether the driver knew of such circumstances should be determined individually by taking into account the reason for revocation of license and the severity of the illegal act committed in each case, whether the driver was subject to revocation for the same reason, and the reason why the license was not notified.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do6480, Dec. 10, 2004). Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted, the following facts are recognized.
The Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency shall make February 5, 201, the defendant has a regular aptitude audit period.