[1] The meaning of "any place used for general traffic" as a concept of road under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act

[2] The case holding that a passage in an apartment complex constitutes a road under the Road Traffic Act in light of its management and utilization status

[1] Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act / [2] Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Do1662 delivered on October 9, 1992 (Gong1992, 3183), Supreme Court Decision 96Do1848 delivered on October 25, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 3500), Supreme Court Decision 2002Do68 delivered on March 26, 2002, Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4807 Delivered on November 28, 2003

Defendant

Prosecutor

Gwangju District Court Decision 2002No1796 delivered on November 8, 2002

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju District Court Panel Division.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act provides that the term "road" means all the places used for the road under the Road Act, the road under the Toll Road Act, and other general traffic. The term "all the places used for general traffic" refers to the public place in reality where the general traffic police authority for the purpose of maintaining order in traffic, is located in the public place for the traffic of unspecified persons or vehicles, and where there is a public place for the purpose of maintaining order in traffic, etc., only the specific persons or those related to them may be used and the place independently managed by them shall not be included (see Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do68, Mar. 26, 2002; 2003Do4807, Nov. 28, 2003, etc.).

2. On July 24, 2001, the court below acknowledged that the defendant operated (vehicle number omitted) car with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.119% around 19:26, and operated it as a passage to the lux apartment complex located in the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju, Seo-gu. The above apartment complex is cut off from outside by piling up the apartment complex with four buildings, fences, fences, etc. The apartment complex is separated from the outside in the apartment complex. In the apartment management office, the apartment apartment is distributed to the vehicle and the apartment is affixed to the vehicle. On the other hand, the outside vehicle is parked with a sign to prohibit parking and parking. In principle, with respect to the parking vehicle without a boiler marked, the court below reversed the judgment of the court of first instance to find it public for the purpose of maintaining the order of traffic of the above apartment complex and the person related to the above apartment complex and the person related to the passage of the vehicle, or the person related to the vehicle, and it does not constitute a public order of the first instance court.

3. However, according to the records, although the above apartment complex is isolated from the outside, the passage way in the apartment complex that the defendant driven in the state of alcohol is connected to the outside road of each entrance and connected to each entrance and connecting the outside road. Since the commercial buildings, etc. are concentrated around the apartment complex management office, the access of the outside vehicle for parking was frequent. Nevertheless, the apartment management office only set up an outside vehicle access sign in the front and rear door, and it was not controlled at the entrance stage because the apartment security guards installed a blocking machine or the apartment security guards did not have access control, and it was not controlled at the entrance stage. On the other hand, the security guards posted at each Dong put a stop sign on the apartment parking space in order to secure the parking space of the residents. Since the parking space of the apartment complex is more serious after the occurrence of the accident of the apartment complex, it is reasonable to see that the parking manager, other than the security guards, has access to each vehicle in the parking room after the door of the Road Traffic Act and the traffic order of the above apartment complex is controlled by the public.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that the passage through the above apartment complex does not fall under the roads under the Road Traffic Act, and ultimately, it erred by misapprehending the legal principles on roads under the Road Traffic Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the ground of appeal assigning this error has merit.

4. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Byun Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)