[도로운송차량법위반][공1984.9.15.(736),1416]
Individual punishment shall be imposed on the failure to act under the provisions of the Road Transport Vehicles Act.
In case of failure to perform the duty of action (each kind of duty to undergo inspection), which is required by each provision of the Road Transport Vehicles Act, it is possible to punish the violation individually. Therefore, since the Re-appellant's failure to perform the duty to undergo a regular maintenance inspection as an owner of an automobile subject to a summary judgment, and the fact that the non-performance of the duty to undergo a regular maintenance inspection as an owner of an automobile subject to the disposition of the fine for negligence in this case differs from the elements of the two judgments
Article 85 subparag. 1, 43-2, 90(1), and 49 of the Road Transport Vehicles Act
Re-appellant
Busan District Court Order 84Ra52 dated March 9, 1984
The reappeal is dismissed.
The grounds of reappeal are examined.
If each provision of the Road Transport Vehicles Act does not fulfill the obligation to act (each obligation to undergo various inspections), it is possible to punish the violation individually.
According to the facts established by the court below, the crime committed by the re-appellant, which was the object of the judgment of the court below, is not subject to the same act but subject to the amendment of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Transport Vehicles Act of November 10, 1983, because the re-appellant, who was the owner of the automobile at the time of the judgment of the court below, failed to perform his/her duty despite being subject to the regular maintenance inspection of Class A until November 10, 1983. Thus, the provisions of Article 85 subparagraph 1 and Article 43-2 of the Road Transport Vehicles Act of this case are stipulated, and the object of the disposition of the fine of this case maintained by the court below is clearly different since the re-appellant's failure to perform his/her duty despite being subject to the continuous inspection of the above vehicle until November 17, 1983. The order of the court below is just and there is no error in the application of the law such as the lawsuit.
Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)