1. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles on the Enforcement Rules of the Road Traffic Act

A. Article 93(2) of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter “former Road Traffic Act”) provides that the commissioner of a district police agency may impose penalty points that serve as the basis for revoking a driver’s license or suspending its validity on a person who violates traffic regulations or causes a traffic accident, as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Public Administration and Security. Article 91(1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Security and Security No. 12, Jul. 10, 2013; hereinafter “Enforcement Rule of the former Road Traffic Act”) provides for the standards for revoking or suspending a driver’s license (attached Table 28). The above Enforcement Rule [Attachment 28] provides for the standards for revoking or suspending a driver’s license.” The phrase “1.” The phrase “in general standards for revoking or suspending a driver’s license” refers to the point of a traffic accident under the Act or the degree of damage caused by the violation, and the penalty points “inte points” refers to 2.

In addition, the above Enforcement Rule [Attachment 28] 1.(b)(1)(i) provides that the penalty points due to the violation of laws or traffic accidents shall be included in all the penalty points for the past three years on the basis of the date of the violation or accident that is intended to apply the administrative disposition standards, and in principle, shall be accumulated and added up all the penalty points for the past three years. However, in the above Enforcement Rule [Attachment 28] 1.(b)(4), where a traffic accident occurs due to a violation of laws and regulations, ① among the individual standards for the disposition of suspension of three. (a) When a violation of this Act or any order issued under this Act (if there are two or more violations of laws and regulations which have caused the traffic accident, only the most severe one of them shall apply) (b) penalty points for the violation of this Act or any order issued under this Act (hereinafter referred to as the “instant provision”), ② penalty points according to the result of the traffic accident (1) and ③ when a traffic accident has occurred.

In full view of the language and system of the former Road Traffic Act and its Enforcement Rule related to the cancellation and suspension of driver's license, the purpose of imposing penalty points by dividing the acts that have caused traffic accidents into traffic accidents and the acts that have caused traffic accidents, and, in principle, imposing penalty points by adding them to the license cancellation or suspension, and the provisions that have certain restrictions on the sum of the penalty points in the case of traffic accidents caused by the violation of laws and regulations, the provisions of [Attachment Table 28] 1. B. (4] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act shall apply only to the cases where the act that has caused traffic accidents by the violation of laws and regulations is added to the penalty points for each item. regardless of the occurrence of traffic accidents, it shall not be deemed that the act of violation of laws and regulations exists and at the same time imposing penalty points for the acts of violation

B. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, while under the influence of alcohol by 0.09%, the Plaintiff was driving at a distance of 5 km or more from the vicinity of the Jongno-gu Seoul Jongno-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government Gannam apartment site, and caused the instant traffic accident resulting from the Plaintiff’s failure to secure the safety distance in front of the Seogu-gu Seoul Western apartment site, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, thereby damaging another motor vehicle. It is recognized that the Plaintiff left the site without taking any measures thereafter.

C. The lower court determined that: (a) it is reasonable to interpret the instant provision only as “an act which directly causes a traffic accident constitutes at least two violations of laws and regulations at the same time; and (b) the act of directly causing a traffic accident is merely an indirect cause; and (c) the instant provision does not apply to drinking driving marks 100 points, 10 points, 10 points, 15 points, and points, 15 points, given points, after a traffic accident, are given to the Plaintiff.

D. In light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the Plaintiff already violated traffic regulations by driving a considerable distance under the influence of 0.09% of alcohol level, and again caused traffic accidents in violation of the duty to ensure safety distance. Thus, the act of violating traffic regulations by driving under the influence of alcohol and the act of causing traffic accidents is subject to separate penalty points. Therefore, it is justifiable to impose 100 points for the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff as to the Defendant’s act of violating traffic regulations due to driving under the influence of alcohol, and imposing 25 points for the sum of the penalty points due to the failure of safety distance due to the act of causing traffic accidents and the non-measures after the accident after the accident is destroyed. Although the lower court’s reasoning is partly inappropriate, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation of Article 91(1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act and the instant provision, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. As to the misapprehension of legal principles as to discretionary authority, violation of the rules of evidence, and omission of judgment

The court below held that the mitigation stipulated in the "Reduction of Criteria for Disposition f." of 1. Of the former Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act [Attachment 28] is voluntary, and that the Plaintiff's violation of the laws and regulations and the risks of road traffic thereby, the circumstances leading up to the Plaintiff's violation of the laws and regulations, the Plaintiff's traffic offense records, and the public interest needs for the prevention of traffic accidents caused by the driving of a motor vehicle, and that the disadvantages suffered by a private taxi driver in relation to a private taxi transport business license are in an indirect relationship with the revocation of the driver's license, and that the disadvantages suffered by a private taxi driver in relation to the private taxi transport business license of this case cannot be deemed to be less than the disadvantages suffered by the Plaintiff due to the necessity of the public interest to be achieved

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the deviation and abuse of discretion, or by misapprehending the logical and empirical rules, or by omitting judgment, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Ki-taik (Presiding Justice)