Whether a dump truck registered as a mid-term truck under the Mid-Term Management Act constitutes a "motor vehicle" under Article 2 subparagraph 14 of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 4518 of Dec. 8, 1992) (negative)

Article 2 subparag. 14 of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 4518 of Dec. 8, 1992) subject to the aggravated punishment provision of vehicles for escape under Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes shall be interpreted only to the automobiles stipulated in Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Automobile Management Act, which fall under all kinds of automobiles stipulated in Article 3 of the same Act. If dump trucks are registered with 16 tons of load capacity without being registered as automobiles under the Automobile Management Act, they do not fall under the automobiles stipulated in Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Automobile Management Act and do not fall under the automobiles stipulated in Article 2 subparag. 14 of the same Act

Article 2 subparag. 14 of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 4518 of Dec. 8, 1992)

A

Prosecutor

Daegu High Court Decision 92No651 delivered on November 4, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The interpretation of penal provisions must be strict, and the interpretation of the meaning of the express provision to the disadvantage of the defendant is not permitted because it is against the principle of no punishment without the law. The principle of interpretation of the law also applies to the interpretation of the administrative law in cases where the contents of the administrative law that is subject to the penal provisions are contents.

Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that the driver of a vehicle who commits a crime as provided in Article 268 of the Criminal Act by means of the transportation of a motor vehicle, a motorcycle or track shall be limited to the driver of a motor vehicle, etc. who separates the subject of the act from death or injury if the driver runs away without taking measures as provided in Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act. The main sentence of Article 2 subparagraph 14 of the Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 4518 of Dec. 8, 192) provides that the term “motor vehicle” means a motor vehicle which is operated using a motor for more than 1 ton of a motor vehicle and is prescribed by the Presidential Decree by the provisions of Article 2 of the Road Traffic Act (referring to a towed motor vehicle shall be deemed a part of a motor vehicle), and the driver of a motor vehicle shall be classified into three or more categories of motor vehicles for passengers, a bus, a special motor vehicle and a two-wheeled vehicle for more specific purposes, and specific purposes of the motor.

In light of the above legal provisions, automobiles under Article 2 subparagraph 14 of the Road Traffic Act, which are subject to the aggravated punishment provision of escape vehicles under Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, shall be interpreted only as automobiles under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Road Management Act, which fall under all kinds of automobiles under Article 3 of the same Act. If dump trucks in this case are not registered as automobiles under the Automobile Management Act with 16 tons load capacity and are registered as mid-term under the Heavy Management Act, this does not constitute automobiles under Article 2 subparagraph 14 of the Automobile Management Act, and they do not constitute automobiles under Article 2 subparagraph 14 of the Road Management Act (the Road Traffic Act was amended on December 8, 192 and added a mid-term automobiles under the proviso of Article 19 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Control of Vehicles under the main sentence of Article 2 subparagraph 14 of the same Act after the amendment of the above Act, and there is no violation of the legal principles as to the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes Act.

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