(a) Roads which are subject to prohibited acts concerning roads as prescribed in Article 47 of the Road Act; and

B. The meaning of private roads under the Private Road Act

(a) Prohibited acts concerning the roads stipulated in Article 47 of the Road Act shall be limited to the roads stipulated in Article 2 of the same Act, which are commonly used for general traffic and stipulated in Article 11 of the same Act and Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act;

(b) The term "private roads under the Private Road Act" means roads not subject to the application of Article 2 (1) of the Road Act or roads not subject to the application of the Road Act, which are installed by permission of the head of competent Si/Gun.

(a) Article 47 of the Road Act;

Defendant

Prosecutor

Jeonju District Court Decision 84No268 delivered on November 4, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in comparison with the records, the act of prohibited on the roads stipulated in Article 47 subparagraph 3 of the Road Act shall be deemed only to apply mutatis mutandis the provisions of Article 11 of the same Act and Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which are commonly used for the general traffic, as a road stipulated in Article 2 of the same Act. Accordingly, the court below's decision that the road in this case does not constitute the roads stipulated in the Road Act is justified, and it shall also be deemed that the act of violating the provisions of Article 2 (1) of the Road Act is not a road to which the provisions of Article 2 (1) of the Road Act or the provisions of the Road Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the prosecutor's preliminary appellant, and it shall be deemed that the act of violating the provisions of Articles 9 and 6 of the Private Road Act is not a road installed by the head of the competent Si/Gun, and there is no evidence that the defendant installed the private road in this case, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to whether it violated the rules of evidence selection.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Osung-hwan (Presiding Justice)