B. Whether only the use of a vehicle in a Quarrying constitutes the operation under Article 2(4) of the Road Transport Vehicles Act (negative)

B. The transportation equipment manufactured by the defendant to purchase and assemble the parts removed from scrapped cars, and the engine equipment is attached and operated on land due to its operation, it constitutes “automobile” as stipulated in Article 2(2) of the Road Transport Vehicles Act. However, if it is used by the defendant for the vehicle or transportation of stones only in the quarrying place operated by the defendant, it is merely a use in a place other than the road, and it can not be deemed to be included in the category of “operation” as stipulated in Article 2(4) of the Road Transport Vehicles Act.

1. According to the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged the facts charged in this case that the defendant was used to drive a motor vehicle of 3.5 tons manufactured by himself without registering it in the motor vehicle register, and affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which found him guilty by applying Articles 84(5) and 4 of the Road Transport Vehicles Act, without registering it in the motor vehicle register, from the US on July 197 to September 30, 1981.

2. For the purpose of this Act, the term “road Transport Vehicles Act” means instruments manufactured for the purpose of movement on land (excluding those using tracks and provisional lines) by motor, or instruments manufactured for the purpose of movement on land by being towed, and Article 4 of the same Act provides that no vehicle shall be operated without obtaining registration in the register of automobiles except for small automobiles with three-wheeled motor vehicles, and Article 2 (4) of the same Act provides that the term “operation” means the use of road transport vehicles in accordance with the usage of the equipment concerned (excluding those used only at places other than roads). Article 2 (5) of the same Act provides that “Road” means roads under the Road Act and the Automobile Transport Business Act and other places used for general traffic, and Article 2 (7) of the Automobile Transport Business Act provides that “road” means roads under the Road Act and other places used for general traffic, and Article 1 of the Road Act provides that “public roads” means roads and other places used for general traffic, and Article 2 (1) of the same Act provides that “public roads” means roads listed under the Road Act.

In light of the above relevant provisions, it is interpreted that the vehicle cannot be operated without being registered in the so-called motor vehicle register as stated in the Road Transport Vehicles Act is limited to the case where it is manufactured for the purpose of movement on land or for the purpose of movement on land by motor, i.e., the vehicle manufactured for the purpose of movement on the road under the Road Act and the Automobile Transport Business Act, or in other places where it is intended to use the vehicle for general traffic, and according to the records, the vehicle manufactured and used by the defendant can be recognized as being equipped with a motor device manufactured by the defendant for the purpose of transport on or around July 197 and operated on the road without being equipped with a motor device for the purpose of transport on the road. However, it is hard to conclude that the vehicle in this case constitutes a "motor vehicle" under Article 2 (2) of the Road Transport Vehicles Act, and it is merely a motor vehicle for the purpose of use on the road to transport or transport the stone within the ground operated by the defendant, and it is not clear whether it is a change in the meaning of the "road transport" in this case.

3. Thus, the judgment of the court below which judged that the present vehicle manufactured by the defendant constitutes an automobile which cannot be operated without being registered under the Road Transport Vehicles Act is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to automobiles requiring registration under the Road Transport Vehicles Act and in the incomplete hearing, and the above illegality is obvious that it affected the judgment, and therefore, it is reasonable to discuss this issue.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Jeonju District Court Panel Division, which is the court below, for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)