logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.12.12 2018노4291
도로교통법위반(사고후미조치)등
Text

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The location of the instant accident is not a road, and the Defendant does not constitute a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed driving).

B. A prosecutor (1) In fact, the defendant, who is erroneous, escaped without the temporary relocation of the damaged vehicle after the traffic accident, falls under the case where the traffic accident itself causes traffic obstruction, and thus, the defendant constitutes a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (measures after the accident).

(2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (1.5 million won in penalty) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. In order to establish a driving without a license in violation of Articles 152 and 43 of the Road Traffic Act, the place where a person drives a motor vehicle, etc. without a driver’s license shall fall under any of the roads under Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Road Traffic Act, namely, roads under the Road Act, “road under the Toll Road Act”, “a toll road under the Toll Road Act, agricultural and fishing village roads under the Non-Act on the Maintenance and Fishing Villages,” and “other places open to the public in which it is necessary to ensure safe and smooth traffic of a large number of unspecified persons or a vehicle.”

Therefore, the road under the Road Traffic Act refers to a place where the public nature of the general traffic police authority exists for the purpose of maintaining traffic order, and only a specific person or a person related thereto may be used and a place where he/she is managed by himself/herself is not included (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Do6579, Sept. 9, 2010; 2017Do1762, Dec. 28, 2017). (b) In light of the foregoing legal principles, the health stand in the instant case; (i) the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below; (ii) the place of the instant accident is the parking lot in front of the apartment commercial building; (iii) the apartment building is located in front of the blocking installed to prevent the entry of the vehicle; and (iv) the access to the road is freely connected as connected.

arrow