The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, without obtaining a license for the operator of construction machinery, operated one ton of the total amount of reduction and exemption of construction machinery in light of around 18:50 on September 09, 2015, with no number plate in the Saturdays 828.

2. We examine the judgment, and the facts charged in this case are that the defendant operated construction machinery without obtaining a construction machinery pilot's license under the main sentence of Article 26 (1) of the Construction Machinery Management Act. According to Article 26 (1) of the Construction Machinery Management Act, a person who intends to operate construction machinery must obtain a construction machinery pilot's license from the head of the Si/Gun/Gu. Thus, it is reasonable to view whether the motor vehicle in this case, which the defendant driven, constitutes construction machinery for which the driver's license is required

According to Article 2 (1) 1 of the Construction Machinery Management Act and Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act / [Attachment 1] 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act / [Attachment 1] of the Construction Machinery Management Act, forking vehicles (those with a string device and steering stone by using a string system) fall under construction machinery, but among those with a strings attached with a strings, vehicles operated only at a place other than a road (road under Article 2 (1) 1 of the Road Traffic Act) but are excluded from construction machinery. However, according to the investigation report and attached factory photographs on March 17, 2016 submitted by the prosecutor, the vehicles in this case fall under the vehicle attached with the strings in the former type, and it is recognized that they are used as a means of movement from the factory inside the food materials.

According to the above facts, the holding of this case seems not to fall under construction machinery that requires a construction machinery operator's license under the Construction Machinery Management Act, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the holding of this case constitutes construction machinery that requires a construction machinery operator's license.

3. In conclusion, this case’s vehicle constitutes construction machinery that requires a construction machinery operator’s license.