Whether her father and son and son and son belong to an automobile

Married son and son shall be deemed as agricultural machinery under Article 2 of the Agricultural Mechanization Promotion Act when considering the intrinsic function and structure of the above aid, even in cases where the gymnasium, which is an agricultural machine, has been remodeled in such a way as to be more efficient in dry field, pumping, valleying, or transporting, and inevitably moves to the road. It shall not be deemed as motor vehicles under the Road Transport Vehicles Act and the Road Traffic Act.

Article 2 of the Agricultural Mechanization Promotion Act, Article 2(2) of the Road Transport Vehicles Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daegu District Court Decision 84No1818 delivered on May 9, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below found that her prompt-name son of this case was remodeled to make it more efficient to dry field, take over, take over, and transport an agricultural machine, and was manufactured in accordance with the device registered for the work lane for farming and fishing village in the Patent Office as of May 1, 1975, and the defendant also purchased for the purpose of farming and fishing village cultivation, compost transportation, etc. from among the day of his management and used mainly within the farm farm, and even if the above equipment inevitably moves on the road in light of its essential function and structure, it shall be deemed as agricultural machine under Article 2 of the Agricultural Mechanization Promotion Act, and it shall not be deemed as a motor vehicle under the Road Transport and Road Traffic Act and the Road Traffic Act, and therefore, the facts charged of this case on the premise that the equipment of this case is a motor vehicle under the Road Transport and Road Traffic Act and the Road Traffic Act, and there is no proof of a crime. The judgment below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the Road Transport and Road Traffic Act as alleged.

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

Justices Lee Byung-su (Presiding Justice)