logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 동부지원 2016.05.25 2016고정180
도로교통법위반(무면허운전)
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. On October 21, 2015, the Defendant, without having obtained a driver’s license around 10:05, driven a vehicle of XG volume, driving approximately 4 km from the street in front of the return market located in the Busan Shipping Daegu, and driving a vehicle of about the same Gu to the street in front of the maintenance of the gold bullion of the same Gu.

2. Determination

A. The crime of violation of Article 152 subparagraph 1 and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act is established only when a driver drives a motor vehicle with knowledge that there is no valid driver's license. Thus, even if the previous driver's license was revoked, it cannot be deemed a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed driving) unless the driver recognizes the cancellation of the license, and even if the competent police authority issued a legitimate public notice in lieu of the notification of the driver's license, the driver becomes aware of the fact that the driver's license was revoked.

In each case where a driver knew of such circumstances, the determination should be made specifically and individually by taking into account the following: (a) the reason for revocation of the driver’s license and the seriousness of the illegal act which served as the reason for revocation; (b) the existence of the record of revocation of the license for the same reason; (c) the reason for revocation of the license; (d) the period from the revocation of the license to the act of driving at issue; and (e) how the driver’s license changes in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes or the system during which the driver owns a license (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do6480, Dec. 10, 200). (b) The Defendant was

According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the driver’s license is revoked and announced on September 2013 on the ground that “the defendant was habitually thief by using a motor vehicle,” and it is not recognized that the notice of revocation of the driver’s license was delivered to the defendant, and otherwise the defendant is the driver’s license.

arrow