Whether the vehicle itself provided as a means of crime or instrument can be an object of the crime of causing property damage under Article 74 of the Road Traffic Act.

The legislative intent of Article 74 of the Road Traffic Act is to emphasize a high level of duty of care to drivers in light of high risk accompanying the operation of vehicles and to protect the property of a third party who is not directly related to the operation of vehicles, so the vehicle itself provided as a means of crime or instrument cannot be deemed as the legal interest of the crime of causing property damage as prescribed in the above Article.

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daegu District Court Decision 75No2350 delivered on December 3, 1975

The non-pharmaceutical height is dismissed.

Judgment on the Prosecutor's Grounds of Non-pharmaceuticalal Grounds of Appeal

The gist of the grounds of appeal is as follows: (a) as a vehicle owned by Nonindicted 1 Co., Ltd., employed by the Defendant, causing injury by occupational negligence to 17 passengers; and (b) as such, damage to the above company's property, which is not owned by the Defendant, should be convicted by Article 74 of the Road Traffic Act; (c) the original judgment does not constitute another's property under Article 74 of the Road Traffic Act; and (d) it is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles of Article 74 of the above Road Traffic Act. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the above Article 74 of the Road Traffic Act, which is a requirement for damages to another's property, is included in the crime of causing damage to another's property, and it is also reasonable to consider it as a method of crime of causing damage to another's property, and it is also reasonable to consider it as a method of crime of causing damage to another's property by negligence or a method of crime of causing damage to another's property, which is not related to the above Article 74 of the Road Traffic Act.

Therefore, the prosecutor's non-permanent appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Hah- Port (Presiding Justice)