The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal lies in a size different from that stipulated in the Vienna Convention, and each description of the above international driving license is written in a position different from that stipulated in the Vienna Convention. Thus, it cannot be recognized as a valid international driving license in the Republic of Korea because it does not comply with the specification and form stipulated in the Vienna Convention on Road Traffic. Furthermore, the court below erred by misapprehending legal principles on the part of the facts charged in the instant case and dismissed the prosecution against the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

2. Determination

A. The lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on the charge of violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed driving) among the facts charged in the instant case for the following reasons (b) dismissed the public prosecution on the ground that the victims explicitly expressed their intent not to punish the Defendant before the instant prosecution was instituted. Article 96(1) of the Road Traffic Act provides that a person who has obtained a driver’s license (hereinafter “international driver’s license”) under the provisions of the Convention on Road Traffic concluded at Geneva in 1949 or the Convention on Road Traffic concluded at Vienna in 1968, may drive a motor vehicle with the international driver’s license only for a period of one year from the date of entry into the Republic of Korea.

In such cases, the types of motor vehicles that can be driven shall be limited to those stated in the international driver's license.

“.......”

In addition, Article 41(2) of the Vienna Convention is effective in the international driver's license as provided by the Contracting Parties in Annex 7 to the Convention.