The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the person who drives a vehicle with 1.5 tons metric tons.

On September 19, 2018, about 20 meters from C parking lots located in Yangsan City B around 10:06 around 10:06, driving the vehicle without a construction machinery pilot's license.

2. We examine the judgment, and examine whether the Defendant’s operation of construction machinery without obtaining a construction machinery pilot’s license under the main sentence of Article 26(1) of the Construction Machinery Management Act. According to Article 26(1) of the Construction Machinery Management Act, a person who intends to operate construction machinery must obtain a construction machinery pilot’s license from the head of a Si/Gun/Gu, and whether the Defendant’s operation of construction machinery constitutes construction machinery for which a construction machinery pilot’s license should be obtained.

According to Article 2 (1) 1 of the Construction Machinery Management Act and Article 2 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, among those which correspond to construction machinery, but are attached with a rush rush by electric rush, it refers to roads under Article 2 (1) 1 of the Road Traffic Act (Article 2 of the Road Act is comprised of roads under Article 2 (1) of the Road Act, such as roadways, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, side roads, tunnels, bridges, overpassess, and overpasses, which include road appurtenances, and Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Construction Machinery Management Act provides that roads include high-speed national highways (including branch lines of high-speed national highways), general national highways (including branch lines of high-speed national highways), Special Metropolitan City roads (including special roads), Metropolitan City roads), Metropolitan City roads (Gu roads), local roads, Si roads, Gun roads).

[See the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court, it is excluded from operating only at a place other than that. According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by this court, it is recognized that the instant vehicle was an electricly operated vehicle with a rush, and is used as a means of goods movement at the C parking lot.

In addition, the instant car is involved in the instant accident.