Defendant

Defendant

Kim Ha

Attorney Lee Jin-bok (Korean)

Suwon District Court Decision 2009 High Court Decision 1035 Decided July 1, 2009

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

Although the Defendant possessed a valid international driver's license recognized by the Road Traffic Act at the time of the instant driving, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact and convicted the Defendant.

2. Summary of the facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below

A. Summary of the facts charged

On December 2, 2008, at around 13:05 on December 2, 2008, the Defendant driven a car with approximately one km of the (vehicle registration number omitted) car owned by Nonindicted Party 1 on the road front of the Seocheon-ri, Seocheon-ri, Seocheon-ri, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seoul.

B. The judgment of the court below

The court below found the defendant guilty on the basis of the defendant's partial statement in court, the police interrogation protocol of the defendant, and driver's license register.

3. Determination

According to the provisions of Article 96 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, anyone who has obtained a driver's license (hereinafter referred to as "international driver's license") pursuant to the provisions of the Convention on Road Traffic concluded at Geneva in 1949 or the Convention on Road Traffic concluded at Vienna in 1968 (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention on Road Traffic") 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, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 80 (1) (a provision that provides that anyone who intends to drive a motor vehicle, etc. shall obtain the driver's license from the commissioner of a district police agency). In this case, the types of motor vehicles that can drive are limited to those stated in

According to each evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, Pakistan, which is the defendant's nationality, is a country to which the Convention on Road Traffic was entered into in Vienna in 1968, and the defendant entered Korea as industrial trainee after obtaining an international driver's license from Pakistan on February 13, 2008, and the above international driver's license issued by the defendant was stated "Moror" as a vehicle capable of driving, and the above international driver's license was controlled on December 2, 2008, which can be interpreted as a vehicle that can be interpreted as a vehicle that can be operated under the above driver's license as a vehicle driven by the defendant at the time of this case. Thus, the defendant had an international driver's license valid under Article 96 (1) of the Road Traffic Act at the time of this case, and thus it does not constitute a non-exclusive driver's license.

For the validity of international drivers' licenses, the prosecutor stated that the driver's license itself must state the phrase of the above Vienna Convention and the phrase of the above Vienna Convention on the International Drivers' Licenses itself, but the above driver's license is issued in accordance with the Paris Convention in 1926. Thus, the above driver's license is not a valid international driver's license pursuant to Article 96 (1) of the Road Traffic Act. The defendant asserts that the driver's license should be punished as a non-exclusive driver's license, and the defendant submits an international driver's license (which includes the non-Nenna Convention) of the same nationality as the defendant. According to the records, the above driver's license in the international driver's license in possession of the defendant at the time was written on the basis of the Paris Convention in 1926, but it is not possible to determine the validity of an international driver's license as the phrase stated in the license in the above Vienna Convention (which is a sovereign country, as a non-Korean driver's license in itself).

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the judgment of the court below is reversed, and it is so decided as follows.

The summary of the facts charged of this case is identical to that of the above Paragraph 1, which constitutes a case that does not constitute a crime as seen earlier, and thus, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judges Hong-gi (Presiding Judge)