[1] Whether a motor vehicle driving without a legitimate notice or public notice of the disposition of driver's license suspension constitutes a motor vehicle driving without a driver's license (negative)

[2] The validity of the disposition of suspension of a driver's license in a case where the disposition authority is not entirely indicated in the disposition of suspension of a driver's license, and whether the operation during the suspension period of a driver's license constitutes a non-exclusive driving (negative)

[1] Even if a licensing authority suspended a driver's license, the driver's license shall not take effect unless there is a legitimate notification or public notice under Article 78 (3) of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 7545 of May 31, 2005) and Article 53-2 (3) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs No. 329 of May 30, 2006). Thus, the driver's license for a vehicle during the period without a legitimate notification or public notice under the above provision after the suspension of the driver's license shall not

[2] In a case where the notice of disposition of disposition of driver's license does not include the chief of the police station in the notice of disposition of disposition of disposition, and the disposition agency does not fully state that it is an administrative agency, the disposition of disposition of driver's license is null and void as a matter of course, and thus, it cannot be deemed as

[1] Article 78 (3) of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 7545 of May 31, 2005) (see current Article 93 (4)), Article 53-2 (3) (see current Article 93 (3)) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs of May 30, 2006) / [2] Article 78 (1) (see current Article 93 (1)) and (3) (see current Article 93 (4)) of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 7545 of May 31, 2005), Article 53-2 (3) (see current Article 93 (3)) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs of May 30, 2006)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2005Do1646 Decided April 29, 2005

Defendant

Prosecutor

Kim Jin Kim

Seoul Western District Court Decision 2005 High Court Decision 1489 Decided December 13, 2006

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the prosecutor's grounds for appeal;

The Defendant was notified of the suspension of a driver’s license by a traffic control police officer at the time of the initial crackdown on a drunk driving, and was given a notice of the suspension of a driver’s license directly from the above police officer, and was present at the traffic safety education to reduce the suspension period. As such, the Defendant was driving with the knowledge of the suspension of a driver’s license, and the Defendant did not clearly state the suspension of a driver’s license in the notice of the suspension of a driver’s license, and thus, the disposition of suspension of a driver’s license cannot be deemed to be null and void abrupt.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. Summary of the facts charged in this case

The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: “The Defendant is a person whose validity of the driver’s license is suspended from May 8, 2005 to July 26, 2005, and around 04:20 on June 4, 2005, the Defendant driving (vehicle number omitted) 3 km car from a high bus terminal located in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, to the front day of the Dongjak-gu 160 Dong-dong, Dong-dong 160.”

B. The judgment of this Court

(1) If the defendant's driving without a license on June 4, 2005, as stated in the facts charged, falls under the driving without a license, the suspension of driver's license from May 8, 2005 to July 26, 2005 should be effective against the defendant.

(2) Facts of recognition

According to the notice of decision on the suspension of driver's license (as of May 7, 2005, the court below held that the defendant's personal information, the license type and number of the defendant, the contents of the decision, the reason for disposition, the disposition, and the date of disposition are stated on May 7, 2005. The defendant, while driving a eco-car at around 0.051% under the influence of alcohol (vehicle number omitted) at around 22:10 on May 7, 2005. The police officer in charge of the military police station's driver's license issued a notice of decision on the suspension of driver's license to the defendant on the same day on May 7, 2005. However, although the above notice includes the defendant's personal information, the identification number of the defendant, the details of the decision, the disposition, the disposition, and the date of disposition, etc., the disposition agency's seal or the head of the police station in charge of the military police station's driver's license did not state it as it.

(3) Determination

Article 78 (3) of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 7545 of May 31, 2005) provides that "the Commissioner of the Local Police Agency shall, when he revokes or suspends a driver's license under the provisions of paragraph (1), notify the person who has obtained the driver's license of the fact: Provided, That if it is impossible to give notice due to unknown whereabouts, notification may be substituted by giving public notice to the police agency having jurisdiction over the domicile stated in the driver's license for 10 days, and Article 53-2 (3) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs No. 329 of May 30, 2006) provides that "the Commissioner of the Local Police Agency or the chief of the police station shall, when he/she has decided to suspend or revoke a driver's license under the provisions of Article 78 of the Act, send or revoke a driver's license in attached Form 52-2 to the person who has obtained the driver's license."

Meanwhile, according to Articles 17(1), 19(1) and 19(2) of the Administrative Appeals Act, “an appeal shall be filed by a ruling authority or a respondent to an administrative agency, and an appeal shall be filed in writing, and in the case of an appeal for adjudication on a disposition, an appellee shall be stated.”

However, according to the above facts, the notification of the disposition of the above disposition of the driver's license issued to the defendant cannot be deemed to have been given a notification of the legitimate disposition of the driver's license under Article 78 (1) and (3) of the Road Traffic Act and Article 53-2 (3) and attached Table 52-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act because the notification of the disposition of the above disposition of the driver's license issued to the defendant was not indicated by the chief of the police station, and it cannot be seen that there was a notification of the disposition of the suspension of the driver's license under Article 78 (3) of the Road Traffic Act and Article 53-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act. Furthermore, since it cannot be confirmed that the disposition of the administrative agency with the authority to issue the above disposition of the disposition of the driver's license

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the facts charged of this case does not contain any errors, so the prosecutor's appeal is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Jae-chul (Presiding Judge)