logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2019.06.14 2019고단1008
교통사고처리특례법위반(치상)등
Text

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Of the instant charges, violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

No construction machinery shall be used or operated unless it is registered.

Nevertheless, around 09:26 on April 10, 2018, the Defendant driven a unregistered vehicle (hereinafter “the instant vehicle”) and operated the said vehicle, which is a construction machinery not registered, by loading and unloading a box from the side side of the C (State) located in Incheon.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Reports on traffic accidents, and photographs taken over by an accident;

1. Determination on the Defendant and defense counsel’s assertion on CCTV images

1. The main point of the argument is that the instant car owned does not constitute construction machinery stipulated by the Construction Machinery Management Act, and thus, it does not constitute a violation of the Construction Machinery Management Act due to the lack of obligation

2. Determination

A. According to Article 2(1)1 of the Construction Machinery Management Act and Article 2(1)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and subparagraph 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, forking vehicles with a string system and steering stone into a string system constitute construction machinery, but the operation of a string system only at a place other than a road is excluded from among those with a string system.

B. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court, the instant car has a rushed rush with the electric rush, and the Defendant operated the instant car at the time of the instant case by operating it on the back side of the Incheon City B and operating it on the back of the box, etc.

According to the above facts, thekin vehicle of this case was attached with the radrid, but since it was operated on the road by the defendant at the time of this case, it is reasonable to view that it constitutes construction machinery as provided by the Construction Machinery Management Act.

Therefore, the defendant and defense counsel's above assertion is not accepted.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 40 of the Construction Machinery Management Act and Articles 40 subparagraph 1 and 4 (1) of the same Act concerning criminal facts, and selection of fines;

arrow