2021 Highest 537 Violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving)

A

On-site prosecutions, transferrs, and public trials.

Attorney after Law-at-Law (Korean)

May 18, 2021

The defendant shall be innocent.

The summary of this decision shall be published.

1. Facts charged;

The Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1.5 million by the Daegu District Court on May 17, 2012 to a fine of KRW 1.5 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act, and a fine of KRW 1.5 million by the same court on February 7, 2014.

On December 24, 2020, the Defendant driven a vehicle owned by himself while under the influence of alcohol with approximately 0.079% alcohol level in a section of about 10 meters in the 10-meter radius at the Magdong-gu, Daegu-gu, Cheongdong-gu, Daegu-gu.

Accordingly, the defendant violated Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act not less than twice.

2. Determination

The Defendant asserts that the instant car does not fall under the construction machinery stipulated by the Construction Machinery Management Act, and therefore, it does not fall under the “motor vehicle” under Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act, and therefore, even if the Defendant driven the instant car in a drinking condition, it cannot be punished under Article 148-2 of the Road Traffic Act even if he driven it in the workplace.

According to Article 2(1)1 of the Construction Machinery Management Act and Article 2(1)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and subparagraph 4 of the same Act, forking vehicles with a string-type device and steering-type are construction machinery, but they are excluded from being operated only at a place other than a road, among those with a string-type string-type attached with a string-type, which is not a road. According to the records of this case, the instant string-type is a string-type attached with a string-type. Since it is recognized that the Defendant operated the instant string-type vehicle at the time of this case only within the Doldong working site, not a road, it does not constitute construction machinery prescribed by the Construction Machinery Management Act. Accordingly, since the above facts charged constitute a crime, it is not guilty pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition by publicly announcing the summary of this judgment pursuant to the main sentence of

Judges Lee Jae-chul