[도로교통법위반][공1992.12.1.(933),3183]
(a) The meaning of “road” under Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Road Traffic Act;
B. Whether an annexed parking lot for a large building falls under the "road" stipulated in the Road Traffic Act
A. Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act provides that the term “road” means the roads under the Road Act, the roads under the Toll Road Act, and all other places used for general traffic. The term “place used for general traffic” in this context refers to the place where, in reality, many and unspecified persons or the public places are located for the purpose of maintaining the order of traffic, and where the general traffic police authority exists for the purpose of maintaining the order of traffic, and it cannot be deemed that only specific persons or those related to them can use it and the place where they are independently managed.
(b) An attached parking lot for a large building shall not be deemed to be a “road” under the Road Traffic Act unless it is recognized that it is an open place for the passage of many and unspecified persons, vehicles, etc.
(a)Article 2 subparagraph 1 (a) of the Road Act, Article 2 of the Road Act, Article 2 of the Toll Road Act, Article 4 (1) of the Road Traffic Act;
B. Supreme Court Decision 92Do448 delivered on April 14, 1992 (Gong1992, 1648) 92Do130 delivered on October 9, 1992 (Gong192, 3182)
A
Prosecutor
Seoul Criminal Court Decision 92No1399 delivered on June 3, 1992
The appeal is dismissed.
We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.
Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act provides for the definition of the road "road" means the road under the Road Act, the road under the Toll Road Act, and all other places used for the general traffic. The term "place used for the general traffic" in this context refers to the public place in reality where many and unspecified people or vehicles are open to the public for the purpose of maintaining order in traffic, etc., and where there is a public nature of the general traffic police authority for the purpose of maintaining order in traffic, etc., and only a specific person or a person related to such person can use it and a place independently managed shall not be deemed to include it.
According to the records, the place of this case where the defendant operated a 4-meter vehicle without drinking, in order to move the location of a parked vehicle, is within the annexed parking lot of a large building, and there is no evidence to recognize the place as a place which is open to the public for the passage of a large number of unspecified persons or vehicles, and therefore, the court below cannot regard the parking lot of this case as a "road" under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act, and therefore, the "driving" on the road under Article 2 subparagraph 19 of the Road Traffic Act cannot be deemed as a "driving" under Article 2, Article 19 of the same Act, and therefore, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law such as misapprehension of legal principles. The argument is without merit.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)