Whether the driver's moving to the chief place constitutes "when the driver leaves from the driver's seat of the vehicle" under Article 44 subparagraph 6 of the Road Traffic Act

The act of creating a situation in which a third party is able to board and drive on the driver's seat because the driver was moved from the driver's seat to the chief driver for the dialogue with another person, but did not turn off the engine while making a conversation and do not turn off the operation, constitutes the act of leaving the driver's seat under Article 44 subparagraph 6 of the Road Traffic Act.

Article 44 subparagraph 6 of the Road Traffic Act

February 12, 1974, 73Do861 decided Feb. 12, 197 (Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act, 54, 10672, 484, 7750)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daejeon District Court (83 High Court Decision 1209)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 200,000 won.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting the amount of KRW 5,000 into one day.

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor's argument is that the "time from the driver's seat" in Article 44 subparagraph 6 of the Road Traffic Act includes not only the driver's seat away from the driver's seat to the driver's seat, but also all cases where the driver's seat may not be driven normally by moving from the driver's seat to the steering seat, but also all cases where the driver's seat may not be driven normally. However, the court below held that the defendant merely moved from the driver's seat to the steering seat and the defendant's seat shall not be deemed to fall under the driver's seat and thereby found the defendant not guilty, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Accordingly, according to the statement of Nonindicted Party 1 among the suspect interrogation protocol prepared for handling the affairs of the accused and the co-defendants of the court below, the public prosecutor and judicial police officer among the protocol of the court below's trial, and the protocol of the statement prepared for handling the affairs of the accused and the co-defendants of the court below on August 18, 1983, the defendant carrying five boxes of drugs on a truck (vehicle number omitted) at one ton of the defendant's driving on August 18, 1983, and he was in front of Nonindicted Party 2's house located in the Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, and started the above drugs at the same time, and Nonindicted Party 1, a Co., Green Cross management employee of the court below, who started the above drugs, moved the vehicle from the driver's seat to the chief chief without fixing the engine engine of the above vehicle to communicate with him, and it is acknowledged that he did not take measures to stop the vehicle from the driver's seat and stop the vehicle from the driver's seat.

Therefore, the court below's decision that different conclusions is erroneous, and thus it reverses all of the judgment below's ex officio pursuant to Article 364 (2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act and decides again following the pleading.

The Defendant (vehicle number omitted) is a driver of a truck of one ton,

1. At around 17:20 on August 18, 1983, Nonindicted Party 1, a stock company managing staff of Green Cross Co. 1, who had been in the said place, was carrying five boxes of medicine on the above vehicle and was in front of Nonindicted Party 2’s house located in the large-scale exhibition Dong (number omitted), did not take such measures as are necessary to maintain the state of stop and prevent others from driving the vehicle without permission on the ground that Nonindicted Party 1, a stock company managing staff of Green Cross Co. 1, who was in the said place, was moving the horse to the head of the steering force to communicate with the Defendant, left the vehicle, and did not stop the engine of the above vehicle, and did not take such measures.

2. The above time and place requested the defendant to teach driving and let the co-defendants of the original trial who are not licensed in the driver's seat take hand and take the Hand and assist him in driving the above vehicle.

Facts in the Judgment

1. Statement corresponding thereto in the trial court of the defendant;

1. In the protocol of the original trial, each statement corresponding thereto in the original trial by the accused and the co-defendants of the original trial

1. Statement corresponding thereto among the accused in the preparation of handling affairs by public prosecutors and judicial police officers and the interrogation protocol on the co-defendants in the original instance; and

1. Statement of Nonindicted 1’s written statement in compliance with the judicial police officer’s protocol of statement; and

1. The judicial police officer’s records of verification of the process of handling affairs can be recognized according to the corresponding records.

Article 70 subparagraph 1, Article 44 subparagraph 6 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 75 subparagraph 1, Article 38 of the Road Traffic Act, and Article 32 (1) of the Criminal Act are applicable to the case of the so-called violation of the driver's duties in the so-called "road Traffic Act" and Article 75 subparagraph 1, Article 38 of the Road Traffic Act, and Article 32 (2), Article 55 (1), and Article 32 (6) of the Criminal Act are applicable to the case of the crime of aiding and abetting without a license. At least two crimes are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, so the two crimes are concurrent crimes under Article 38 (1) 2 and Article 50 of the same Act, which are heavier than punishment under Article 38 (1) 2 and Article 50 of the same Act, and when the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the period of detention shall be made by converting the defendant's fine of 200 won within the amount of punishment under Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cha Sung-sung (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge)