The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. Facts charged;

A. On April 26, 2015, the Defendant violated the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving) without obtaining a motor-driven driver’s license on a motor device at around 21:40 on April 26, 2015, the Defendant driven a COMET motor bicycle at the section of approximately 124cc of the 10km away from the street to the front side of the post office located at approximately 272, Jung-gu, Seoul, Seoul.

B. The Defendant violated the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, who was a motorcycle owner under the preceding paragraph, operated the said motorcycle without purchasing mandatory insurance from the vehicle at the same time and place as the preceding paragraph.

2. Determination

A. In accordance with Article 248 of the Criminal Procedure Act, a public prosecution takes effect on persons other than the defendant designated by the public prosecutor. Thus, the prosecution takes effect only on the persons designated by the public prosecutor, and accordingly, the defendant was indicated as the defendant in the indictment because the suspect has cited another person's name.

Even if this is merely an error in the indication of the party, and the prosecutor brings a prosecution against the mother, so the mother will be the defendant, and the accused will have the effect of the prosecution against the mother.

However, in a case where the actual continuation of a lawsuit occurs, such as the discovery of name and appearance of the accused, is discovered in the course of a trial against the accused by filing an application for a formal trial with regard to a summary order, and where the accused has the status of the accused in form or appearance, the court should apply Article 327 subparagraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act to the effect that it is clear that the accused did not have a legitimate institution of public prosecution, thereby clearly resolving the unstable status of the accused by applying Article 327 subparagraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Do2215 delivered on November 28, 1997, and Supreme Court Decision 92Do2554 delivered on January 19, 1993, etc.) B.

In this case, lives v.