Whether the "domining tool", which is a steering device, is subject to a daily inspection prior to the commencement of the operation of the motor vehicle every day.

In light of the provisions of Article 43 of the Road Transport Vehicles Act and Article 44 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Transport Vehicles Act, the "laging equipment", which is a steering gear, cannot be deemed to be subject to daily inspection prior to the commencement of operation, and the operator of a motor vehicle is not negligent because he/she did not check the "laging equipment" on a daily basis.

Defendant

Prosecutor

Chuncheon District Court Decision 74No55 delivered on June 5, 1974

The appeal is dismissed.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In summary, a driver of a motor vehicle shall conduct a daily inspection of the motor vehicle, and the motor vehicle's "laging tool" of the motor vehicle is not a daily inspection even though the defendant did not conduct a daily inspection, so the motor vehicle accident in this case occurred due to negligence where approximately 1.5 cent meters of the cut part of the "laging hole" cut part of the motor vehicle in this case and the melting part of the accident in this case was not discovered, but the court below found the defendant not guilty without adopting evidence supporting the facts charged only with the change of the defendant, and it erred by misapprehending the rules of evidence and by misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of occupational death.

2. According to Article 43 of the Road Transport Vehicles Act and Article 44 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, a person who operates an automobile cannot be deemed to be obligated to inspect the "laging machine" daily. According to Article 43 of the Road Transport Vehicles Act, a person who operates an automobile under paragraph (1) of the same Article has to conduct a daily inspection by the standards for daily inspection as determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, and according to Article 44 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Transport Vehicles Act, which is the Ordinance of the Ministry of Transport and Transportation, Article 43 (1) of the Act, Article 43 (1) of the Act is stipulated to conduct a daily inspection by the standards for daily inspection in attached Table 9, and it cannot be deemed that the "laging machine", which is a steering device, is subject to the inspection, and even if the testimony of novel-type, the "laging machine" of this case, even if it appears to have been done by the defendant's daily inspection before the commencement of the accident, it can be seen that the defendant's daily inspection was conducted by 10 days after the inspection.

In this regard, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is justified and it is not reasonable to discuss the theory of attacking the original edition.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Justice)