Whether Article 2-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act (Ordinance of the Ministry of Transport No. 861 of Aug. 1, 1987) which includes a bicycle with a motor of less than 50cc exhaust displacement into “motor bicycle” is invalid as it is in violation of Article 2-15 of the Road Traffic Act, a mother corporation (affirmative)

Article 2-2 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act (Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 861 of Aug. 1, 1987) provides that the term "motor bicycle bicycle" under Article 2-15 of the Road Traffic Act means two wheeled motor vehicles (including a bicycle with a motor engine of less than 50 cc) with a total displacement of not more than 125 cc among two wheeled motor vehicles under Article 3 of the Automobile Management Act, and it is also included under 50 cc in the "motor bicycle". Article 2-15 of the Road Traffic Act provides that the designation of the "motor bicycle" shall be delegated to the Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs and it is clearly delegated to the Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs, so it does not violate the provisions of the Road Traffic Act, so it does not violate the provisions of the Road Traffic Act, and thus it does not violate the provisions of Article 2-15 of the Road Traffic Act, which stipulate that the motor vehicle shall be more than 20 c and less than 5 c.

Article 2 subparagraph 15 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 2-2 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act (Ordinance of the Ministry of Transport and 1, 1987), Article 3 of the Automobile Management Act, Article 2-1 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act

Supreme Court en banc Decision 90Do1516 Decided November 27, 1990 (Gong1991, 510) Decision 90Do1283 Decided December 7, 1990

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daegu High Court Decision 90No412 delivered on August 22, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that when a driver of the relevant vehicle who commits a crime under Article 268 of the Criminal Act runs away without taking measures under Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding a victim, etc. Article 2 of the Road Traffic Act shall be punished aggravatingly for the case of death and bodily injury. Article 2 (15) of the Road Traffic Act provides that with respect to the bicycle of the motor vehicle of the above Article 3 of the Automobile Management Act, the term “motor bicycle” means a bicycle of the two-wheeled vehicle as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs among the two-wheeled vehicles under Article 3 of the Automobile Management Act, and Article 2-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act (Ordinance of the Ministry of Transport and Fisheries No. 861 of Aug. 1, 1987) includes a bicycle motor of less than 125 cc. (including a bicycle motor of less than 50 cc.) among the two-wheeled vehicles under Article 3 of the Automobile Management Act.

However, although Article 2 subparagraph 15 of the Road Traffic Act, which is a mother corporation, delegates the classification designation of the "motor bicycle" to the Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs and designates the "motor bicycle" by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Transportation which is not the Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs, it is in conflict with the provisions of the mother law in this respect because it neglects the matters of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act which is not the Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs, and Article 2 subparagraph 15 of the Road Traffic Act which is the mother corporation delegates the designation of the "motor bicycle" to classify the "motor bicycle" from among the two-wheeled motor vehicles under Article 3 of the Automobile Management Act, and Article 3 of the Automobile Management Act and Article 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act provide that two-wheeled motor vehicles are more than 50 cc engine displacements or 0.59 knife power-driven vehicles are not the above two-wheeled motor vehicles.

Therefore, Article 2-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act clearly violates the delegation provision of the Road Traffic Act, and it is a case where the provision is null and void (Article 90Do1516 delivered on November 27, 1990).

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles.

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

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)