The case holding that part of the passage outside the parking zone line in an apartment complex where the entry of the general public is not controlled constitutes "road" under Article 2 (1) of the Road Traffic Act.

The case holding that part of the passage outside the parking zone line in an apartment complex where the entry of the general public is not controlled shall be deemed to be the "road" under Article 2 (1) of the Road Traffic Act.

Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act

Supreme Court Decision 92Do2901 delivered on January 19, 1982, Supreme Court Decision 92Do3046 delivered on March 12, 1993, Supreme Court Decision 92Nu18047 delivered on July 13, 1993, Supreme Court Decision 93Do1574 delivered on January 25, 1994, Supreme Court Decision 94Do1629 delivered on September 27, 1994, Supreme Court Decision 94Nu9566 delivered on July 28, 1995

Defendant

Defendant

Suwon District Court Decision 97Da4630 delivered on September 11, 1997

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

When the above fine is not paid, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period converted into one day of 20,000 won.

The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant is that the place where the defendant operated the automobile of this case is within the apartment complex and it cannot be seen as a place corresponding to the road under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act. However, the court below accepted the facts charged of this case and convicted the defendant. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on roads under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal above, the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment of this case on the third day of trial at the time. The court below's judgment is no longer maintained, and the judgment below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows after pleading.

The summary of the facts of the crime and evidence against the defendant recognized as a party member is as stated in the judgment of the court below, with the exception that the "in the front parking lot of the original Hancheon Apartment No. 3" is changed to the "in the front parking lot of the original Hancheon Apartment No. 105 and 106", and the summary of the evidence is added to the examination of the defendant prepared by the judicial police assistant, the investigation report prepared by the judicial police assistant, the investigation report prepared by the traffic accident, and the confirmation report prepared by the management office of the original main apartment as stated in the judgment of the court below, and it is also cited as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts;

Article 107-2 subparagraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act and Article 41 (1) of the Road Traffic Act.

2. Invitation of a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

Judgment on Defendant’s argument

The defendant asserts that the place of operation of the car of this case is a parking lot within the apartment complex of this apartment complex, and that the above place cannot be seen as a place corresponding to the road under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act.

Therefore, first of all, we examine whether the above vehicle was operated by the defendant in the above apartment complex. According to the evidence duly examined by the court below, the protocol of examination of the defendant in the judicial police assistant and the protocol of actual survey of traffic accidents, the defendant's vehicle driving place of this case is not only the parking lot within the above apartment complex but also the passage outside the parking zone between the above apartment complex 105 and 106, and further, it is clear that the passage outside the parking zone line between the above apartment 105 and 106 roads is a road under subparagraph 1 of Article 2 of the Road Traffic Act, and the above evidence and the written confirmation of the head of the management office of the original apartment (the investigation record No. 43) is not sufficient for the defendant to freely use the above apartment vehicle within the above apartment zone.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Kim Hong-sung (Presiding Judge)