logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2014.10.16 2014노793
도로교통법위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The crime of violating Article 87 (1) of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 10382, Jul. 23, 2010; hereinafter “former Road Traffic Act”) requires strict intention as a crime of omission. The Defendant did not have any awareness of the excess of the period of the aptitude test and did not allow the occurrence of the result, and the Defendant did not have received prior notice of the regular aptitude test from the Road Traffic Authority. Thus, the Defendant cannot be presumed to have had any willful negligence on the charges of this case solely on the ground that the driver’s license includes the period of the front aptitude test and the warning notice was issued at the lower end of the back of the driver’s license. However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case.

B. In light of the legal principles, Article 156 Subparag. 8 and Article 87(1) of the former Road Traffic Act and Article 9 of the Addenda of the Road Traffic Act (Act No. 10382, Jul. 23, 2010) (hereinafter “the instant legal provision”) discriminates against Class 1 and Class 2 driver’s licenses without reasonable grounds, and they are contrary to the principle of equality under Article 11 of the Constitution, the principle of no punishment without law under Article 12 and the principle of no punishment without law under Article 37(2) of the Constitution, and not notifying citizens of the fact that the period of the aptitude test has lapsed is contrary to the principle of social welfare state under the Constitution, and there is a room to dispute the period of the aptitude test combined with the notification system, and thus, they are in violation of the right to a trial, and the judgment of the court below convicting the Defendant of the instant facts charged

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s duly adopted and investigated evidence regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, namely, ① the Defendant’s front side of the driver’s license stating “the period of aptitude test: from 26, 2010 to 25, 2010,” and ② the above driver’s license.

arrow