logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.12.13 2017노2267
도로법위반
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence and relevant statutes submitted by the prosecutor as to the gist of the grounds for appeal, the anti-public servant of the construction works in Korea constitutes “related public officials” under Article 77(4) of the former Road Act (wholly amended by Act No. 13791, Jan. 19, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the preparation of a written confirmation of restriction on operation related to the restriction on the construction, and included in “Submission of related documents” under the said provision, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in the instant case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is C’s driver of the cargo vehicle.

On April 1, 2016, the Defendant: (a) was requested to prepare a certificate of violation of restrictions on operation in order to verify whether the volume of the “TG cargo was found to have been found to exceed the four scales from the off to the off,” on April 1, 2016, but did not comply with the request of the road management agency by refusing to prepare it without justifiable grounds.

3. The judgment of the court below is based on the evidence duly adopted and examined, i.e., ① Article 77(4) of the former Road Act provides that drivers who violate the restriction on the operation of vehicles may be punished in order to ensure the effectiveness of the restriction on the operation of vehicles for the purpose of preserving the road structure. Thus, the procedure to confirm drivers of vehicles violating the restriction on the operation is also included in the measurement procedure to confirm whether they violate the restriction on the operation. ② According to the purport of the above provision and the text of the above provision, it is reasonable to interpret the "related documents" as documents already possessed by drivers, such as vehicle registration certificate, driver's license, etc. ③ to confirm whether they violate the restriction on the operation.

arrow