2. The provision that Article 63 of the Road Traffic Act provides for the criminal punishment of a person driving a two-wheeled motor vehicle and driving the motor vehicle shall not be deemed unconstitutional in light of the following reasons.

[See Constitutional Court Order 201Hun-Ba51, Nov. 24, 201; Constitutional Court Order 2007Hun-Ba90, 133, Jul. 31, 2008; etc.] (1) Whether the freedom of general action (the freedom of passage) has been infringed upon (i) whether the risk of accidents arising from the structural characteristics of the two-wheeled motor vehicle and the consequence of the accident is serious, it is recognized that the necessity to prohibit the traffic of the two-wheeled motor vehicle, such as the two-wheeled motor vehicle driver for the safety of the two-wheeled motor vehicle and the speed and safety of traffic on the expressway, etc. is more legitimate and appropriate.

② Even if the driving performance of a two-wheeled motor vehicle is not behind a two-wheeled motor vehicle, it cannot be deemed that the risk of an accident and the gravity of the result of an accident arising from the structural characteristics of the two-wheeled motor vehicle is mitigated. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the two-wheeled motor vehicle has a comprehensive prohibition of traffic without considering the driving performance of the two-wheeled motor vehicle.

(3) If there are other roads for general traffic in contact with the relevant section, the motorway is designated, and this is also the same as the expressway. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the degree of infringement of fundamental rights is insignificant and thus contravenes the minimum principle of damage.

(2) As to the infringement of the right to equality, the two-wheeled motor vehicles are prohibited from passing on the expressway, etc. because the driver's risk and the consequence of the accident is serious due to the structure exposed to the outside.