207 Highly 178 Violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving)

김ㅇㅇ(oㅇ0-1000), ㅇㅇ0 기사

주거 ㅇㅇ시ㅇ 02동ㅇㅇㅇ0아파트 이

본적 ㅇㅇ시0면ㅇㅇ리294

최 ㅇㅇ

Public-service advocates Choi Young-chul (National Assembly)

August 1, 2007

The defendant shall be innocent.

The summary of the judgment of this case is publicly announced.

1. Facts charged;

피고인은 2007. 2. 2. 23:20경 혈중알콜농도 0.158 % 의 술에 취한 상태에서, ㅇㅇㅇ ㅇㅇ 시에로승용차를 ㅇㅇ시 ㅇㅇ2동 ㅇㅇㅇ 아파트 단지 내에서 105동 앞 주차장부터 106동 옆 통행로까지 약 50m 운전하였다.

2. Determination;

A. Only when a person drives a vehicle from a "road under the Road Traffic Act" can be punished for driving under the influence of alcohol (Article 150 subparagraph 1, Article 44 (1) and Article 2 (24) of the Road Traffic Act, and the "road under the Road Traffic Act" means a road under the Road Act, a road under the Toll Road Act, a public place in reality that is open to the public for the traffic of many and unspecified persons, or vehicles and horses (Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act).

B. If a parking zone line was installed on the one side between the buildings in an apartment complex in which a vehicle can park, it shall be deemed an apartment parking lot installed in accordance with the relevant provisions such as the Parking Lot Act, and whether the passage outside the parking zone line constitutes a road under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act as a place used for general traffic, in light of the management of the apartment complex and the circumstances of this use, whether the part in question is a place where a general police right for the purpose of maintaining traffic order is practically restricted to a large number of unspecified people or a person who has a specific building related to it, and it shall be determined in accordance with whether it can be used only and independently managed by a specific person or a person who has a specific building related thereto (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do6779, Jan. 14, 2005).

C. According to the evidence of this case, the following facts are acknowledged.

① 피고인은 원주시 ㅇㅇ 동 ㅇㅇㅇ 아파트( 이하 '이 사건 아파트'라 한다 ) ㅇㅇ 이 ㅇ 에 거주하고 있다. 피고인은 사건당일 밖에서 음주를 하고 대리운전을 통해 강원이 ㅇㅇ 시에로승용차를 타고 이 사건 아파트로 이동한 뒤 아파트 입구 안쪽의 재활용창 고 부근 주차구획선 밖의 통로부근에 승용차를 주차해 놓고 다시 부근에서 음주를 하 였다. 그 뒤 피고인은 귀가를 하다가 승용차를 주차한 장소가 청소차량의 작업장소이 어서 작업에 지장을 줄 것을 염려하는 한편 다음날의 출근을 위하여 승용차를 운전하 고 거주지인 108동으로 가다가 106동 부근의 통행로에서 마주 오는 차량과의 우선통 행문제로 시비가 붙어 결국 음주상태에서의 운전이 적발되었다.

② The apartment complex of this case, which is isolated from the outside with walls, etc., consists of 101 to 116 units. 101 units-12 units and 113 units-16 units and 116 units are structurally separated. While the passage between 101 units-12 units and 113 units-16 units and 116 units are passing between 101 units-12 units and 113 units and 116 units, the width of the vehicle is narrow, and it is impossible to operate the vehicle due to a high-water vehicle.

③ The entrance of apartment buildings from 101 to 112 units are one place, and the structure of the entrance of the apartment is that the vehicle that entered the entrance runs away from the entrance way to the entrance way. The length of the passage way does not require a lot of time to return to the entrance way. It does not require a lot of time to return from the passage way. Since the door and the rear door are not different, nor the commercial buildings in the surrounding areas are concentrated, there is no reason for the external vehicle to pass through the apartment of this case regardless of the entrance of the apartment.

(4) A motor vehicle may be parked in one or both of the parking spaces on the road along the apartment road without any special lane on the traffic lane. A parking zone line shall be placed in all areas of the parking zone along the traffic lane, and if a motor vehicle is parked in the parking zone, the traffic lane is narrow so that the traffic along the traffic lane itself is impossible.

(5) Although there is a guidance poster prohibiting the entry of external vehicles at the entrance of an apartment, there is no device or facility that physically and structurally controls traffic, such as a blocking facility. Security guards do not regularly control the entry of vehicles.

D. Comprehensively taking account of the structure, management, and utilization of the apartment complex and the passage route of the instant apartment complex, and the circumstances leading up to the detection of the Defendant, the parking zone in the instant apartment complex is a place corresponding to the Amart annexed parking lot established by the relevant regulations, such as the Parking Lot Act. The instant apartment complex is not an incidental parking zone along the passage along the parking zone, but an incidental passage to the parking zone is installed in the parking zone. Even if an apartment parking lot in the form of a closed apartment is not physically controlled by the blocking facility or the security guard, the passage area in the parking zone is merely a passage for parking the vehicle at that place, and it cannot be deemed that it is actually used as a passage for an unspecified number of people or vehicle, and thus, it cannot be said that it is a road as provided in Article 2

3. Conclusion

The facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of a crime.In accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, innocence shall be pronounced and the summary of the judgment shall be announced in accordance with Article 58(2)

Yellow leukle