Whether a dump truck registered as a dump truck constitutes a motor vehicle under the Automobile Transport Business Act.

The term “motor vehicles” under the Automobile Transport Business Act means the motor vehicles under the Road Transport Vehicles Act, and Article 31 of the mid-term Management Act provides that the application of the Road Transport Vehicles Act and the Road Traffic Act shall be excluded (Provided, That only a part of the Road Traffic Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the operation of a road) to the mid-term and mid-term pilot. Therefore, a dump truck which is registered as a mid-term operator cannot be viewed as a motor vehicle under the Automobile Transport Business Act, and therefore, even if dump truck is filled-up and transported with such a dump truck, it cannot be said that

Articles 2 and 4 of the Automobile Transport Business Act, Article 2 of the Road Transport Vehicles Act, Article 31 of the Mid-Term Management Act

Defendant

The defendant is innocent.

The summary of the facts charged in this case is as follows:

The defendant, as the representative director of the non-indicted 1 corporation, entered into a embling transport contract with the non-indicted 2 corporation on April 27, 1985 without obtaining a license from the authorities, and had the non-indicted 3's driver drive the 15 tons of dump trucks, etc. (second-term number omitted) owned by the non-indicted 1 corporation from May 31 of the same month to May 31 of the same year, and operated the motor vehicle transport business by transporting approximately 537 vehicles from the new construction site of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Samsungdong New Trade Center to approximately 3,22,00 won and receiving freight of KRW 3,22,00 in the front of the city in which the same opening-dong is located. The prosecutor applied the above facts charged to Article 72 subparagraph 1 and Article 4 (1) of the Motor Vehicle Transport Business Act.

Comprehensively taking account of the statement of the accused's suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the judicial police officer in the process of handling affairs, the copy of the mid-term examination certificate bound in 51 pages, 52 pages, and the copy of the mid-term registration certificate, all five dump trucks owned by the non-indicted corporation 1, including (number omitted) 15 tons of the above facts charged, can be acknowledged that all 5 dump trucks owned by the non-indicted corporation, including dump trucks, are mid-term registered pursuant to Article 3 of the mid-term Management Act.

However, Article 2 (6) of the Automobile Transport Business Act provides that the term "motor vehicles" means motor vehicles under the Road Transport Vehicles Act, and Article 2 (2) of the Road Transport Vehicles Act provides that "motor vehicles" means instruments manufactured for the purpose of movement on land (excluding those using tracks and boats) by motors or instruments manufactured for the purpose of movement on land and manufactured for the purpose of movement on land". Among the dump trucks of this case, the term "motor vehicles" can be seen as "motor vehicles" under the Road Transport Business Act and the Automobile Transport Business Act. On the other hand, Article 31 of the mid-term Management Vehicles Act does not apply to the mid-term and mid-term operators, but only some of the provisions of the Road Traffic Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the operation on roads, and it is clear that the concept of motor vehicles under the Road Transport Business Act is excluded from the concept of motor vehicles under the Road Traffic Act, and it is clear that the provisions of the Automobile Transport Business Act are excluded from the concept of motor vehicles under the Road Traffic Act, the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Compensation Act among the license and other provisions of the Road Transport Business Act.

Therefore, since dump trucks, etc. of this case do not correspond to the concept of "automobile" under the Automobile Transport Business Act, even if the defendant carried on the same transportation business as the facts charged with dump trucks, etc. of this case, it cannot be deemed that he carried on the automobile transport business under the Automobile Transport Business Act. Therefore, this case constitutes the case where the defendant's case of this case under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act does not constitute a crime, and thus, the defendant

Justices Lee Jong-won