Whether the act of driving a vehicle constitutes a violation of the obligation to carry and present the driver's license under Article 77 of the Road Traffic Act (affirmative)

Article 77 (A) of the Road Traffic Act, in light of the duty to carry a driver's license and the purport of imposing the duty to present a driver's license to a police officer, the driver's license here refers to a legitimate driver's license, and it cannot be deemed that the driver's license itself includes a means of proving that the driver has a license, and it shall not be deemed that the driver's license whose term of validity expires, regardless of the validity of the driver's license. Thus, the act of carrying and operating the driver's license whose term of validity expires, ultimately violates the duty to carry and present the driver's license under Article 77 of the Road Traffic Act.

Articles 76 and 77 of the Road Traffic Act, and Article 53 of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Traffic Act

Defendant Limited Partnership Company

Prosecutor

Daejeon District Court Decision 89No177 delivered on April 7, 1989

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted the defendant on the ground that the non-indicted, who is an employee of the defendant company, has a driver's license with the expiry date of the validity date on January 23, 198, and without holding a valid driver's license by driving a taxi on January 30 of the same year after the expiration date of the validity date. As to the ancillary facts of this case, even if his driver's license was revoked due to the non-indicted's failure to take an aptitude test under the Road Traffic Act, the revocation of the driver's license cannot take effect unless the non-indicted notified of the disposition of revocation pursuant to Article 53 of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Traffic Act, and therefore,

However, the purport of Article 77 (A) of the Road Traffic Act, which imposes the duty to carry a driver's license and present a police officer's license, is to ensure that it does not interfere with a police officer's prompt confirmation of the driver's identity, license conditions, etc. in regulating or controlling the traffic, so that it does not interfere with the driver's identity and the existence of a valid driver's license. Thus, the driver's license mentioned above cannot be seen as including a legitimate driver's license. The driver's license itself refers to a legitimate driver's license, and it cannot be viewed as including a means of proof that can prove that the driver's license has a license, and there is no basis for continuing or restoring the validity of the expired driver's license under the Road Traffic Act, and further, if Article 76 of the Road Traffic Act provides that the driver's license should be issued even if it comes to the expiration of the valid driver's license before the new driver's license is issued, it shall be deemed that the driver's license already expires regardless of the validity of the driver's license.

Nevertheless, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the legal principles of driver's license under Article 77 of the Road Traffic Act and affected the conclusion of the judgment by deeming the driver's license for which the effective expiration date expired as a valid driver's license for the reasons indicated in its holding.

Therefore, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)