logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 원주지원 2016.05.24 2016고정101
자동차손해배상보장법위반
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. No person prosecuted shall operate any motor vehicle on a road which is not covered by mandatory insurance;

On December 24, 2015, at around 07:00, the Defendant operated a C having vehicle not covered by mandatory insurance at approximately 2 km section from the Defendant’s residence located in Gangwon-si, Gangwon-si, to the same city normally 571 to the same city.

2. Article 5(1) of the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation for Damages (hereinafter “Act”), provides that a motor vehicle owner shall subscribe to liability insurance, etc., and Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the same Act provides that “motor vehicles” shall be defined as “motor vehicles subject to the Motor Vehicle Management Act and construction machinery subject to the Construction Machinery Management Act, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.”

In addition, Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Enforcement Decree of the Construction Machinery Management Act lists the "construction machinery subject to the Construction Machinery Management Act as prescribed by Presidential Decree". Among them, the number of truck trucks is included, but the number of truck trucks is not included.

In light of the language and text of the above provision, construction machinery for which subscription to liability insurance, etc. is enforced is limited to those listed in Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the part of the owner, and the Enforcement Decree of the Construction Machinery Management Act and the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the part of the owner of the owner of the construction machinery separate from those for the owner of the truck (Article 2 subparag. 7 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the part of 14. and 26. and Article 2 subparag. 7 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the part of the owner), it is determined

3. As the proof of the facts charged in the instant case is insufficient, the Defendant is acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment is not publicly announced pursuant to the proviso of Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act.

arrow