Whether Article 108 of the Road Traffic Act is violated in the event that a stolen vehicle is damaged by an accident;

When a vehicle is damaged to another person's building or other property as provided in Article 108 of the Road Traffic Act, regardless of whether it is owned by the driver of the vehicle or under the possession of another person, refers only to a case where the driver neglects due care required for the operation of the vehicle, or damages another person's building or property other than the vehicle provided as a means of crime or instrument by gross negligence, and it does not fall under the case where the driver of the vehicle who drives the stolen vehicle and damages the vehicle due to the driver's accommodation, etc.

Article 108 of the Road Traffic Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 86No1905 delivered on May 29, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, the court below maintained the judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted the defendant on the ground that it is reasonable to apply the facts charged that the driver of a vehicle which was stolen was negligent in paying attention necessary for his duties or damages another person's building or property other than the vehicle provided as a means of crime or instrument by gross negligence when the driver of a vehicle, regardless of his own ownership or other person's property, is punished for the purpose of securing safe and smooth traffic by removing all traffic risks and obstacles, and thus it is reasonable to interpret the above facts charged to be aimed at securing safe and smooth traffic by removing all traffic hazards and obstacles. The judgment of the court of first instance is just, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles of Article 108 of the Road Traffic Act as stated above.

The paper is without merit.

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

Justices Park Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)

Kim Jong-sik shall not sign and affix a seal on his/her overseas business trip. A regular admission shall be made.