2017 Highest 1339, 2017 Highest 1608, 2017 Highest 1808, 2017 Highest 2204;

2018 Highest 10, 2018 Highest 79, 2018 Highest 139 (each consolidation) Property Damage, Notes

ocination, assault, damage to public goods, violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, injury, interference with business;

Intimidation, thief, Drinking Driving, Unlicensed Driving

00

Jina decoration (prosecutions) and stuffe leather (Trial)

Attorneys OOO (KO)

May 31, 2018

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year, by a fine of 500,000 won.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in the workhouse for the period calculated by converting the amount of KRW 100,000 into one day.

The defendant shall be ordered to pay an amount equivalent to the above fine by provisional payment.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge of drunk driving and driving without a license shall be acquitted.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the prosecution on the point of violence and intimidation on May 7, 2017 is dismissed, respectively.

Criminal facts

"2017 Man-Ma139, 2017 Go-Ma1608, 2017 Go-Ma1608, 2017 Go-Ma1808, 2017 Go-Ma2204, 201 and 2018 Go-Ma10"

- omitted

" 2018 Highest 79

On October 3, 2017: around 18, 2017: around 04:18, the Defendant stolen the two by driving a 1 million won or more at the market price where the victim ○○○○○ was parked with the key at the front road * * * * * * * * * 100,00 accane.

2018 Highest 139,

- omitted

Summary of evidence, application of statutes, grounds for sentencing - omitted

The acquittal portion

1. Summary of the facts charged

"Violation of the Road Traffic Act 2018 Highest 79 (Retoxicated Driving) and Violation of the Road Traffic Act (Unlicensed Driving)

The Defendant did not obtain a motorcycle driver's license under the influence of temporary alcohol concentration of 0.147% as stated in the judgment, i.e., paragraph (2) of 2018 Highest 79, and driven an Oral Ba, as stated in the above paragraph (2), from the same place as that of the above paragraph (2) ** * ** * * Haba who stolen from the section of about 30 meters up to the front road as stated in the above paragraph (2).

2. Determination

A. Article 2 subparagraph 26 of the Road Traffic Act provides that the term "driving of a vehicle or horse means a vehicle that is driven by a motor without using any railway or installed line on the road (including operation) in accordance with its original use, and Article 2 subparagraph 18 of the Road Traffic Act provides that "motor vehicle means a vehicle that is driven by using a motor without using any railway or installed line." In addition, in light of the original function of the motor vehicle and the legislative intent of the Road Traffic Act, it is necessary to use the motor vehicle for the purpose of falling under the use of the motor vehicle according to its original use. In addition, in the case of trying to newly construct a motor vehicle under parking, the mere fact that the motor vehicle was driven by the original use method is insufficient, and it is sufficient to complete so-called operation of the engine, and it is sufficient (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da30834, Nov. 12, 199, etc.).

Meanwhile, Article 2 subparag. 19 of the Road Traffic Act provides that "motor vehicles with engine displacement of not more than 125cc among two-wheeled vehicles under Article 3 of the Motor Vehicle Management Act and motor vehicles with engine displacement of not more than 50cc" means any one of the two-wheeled vehicles with engine displacement of not more than 125cc", and such legal principle is also applicable to the driving of motor bicycles.

B. Determination

In light of the following circumstances and facts acknowledged by the record, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor cannot be admitted as evidence because it has no admissibility, or the evidence alone is insufficient to recognize the driving point of the motor vehicle like the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

According to the witness ○○○○○’s legal statement, the Defendant appeared to have stolen and take off the stoba at the place indicated in the facts charged, but the Defendant was in the state where the stoves of the above stoves came to be dumped and the stoves of the stoves, and the Defendant was fumped on the stoves of the above stoves, and the stoves of the stoves of the stoves, and even if the stoves of the stoves were laid off on the stoves of the stoves, the s tove the stoves of the stoves, and even if the stoves do not go on the stoves of the stoves, the stoves of the stoves could have been removed from the stoves.

In light of the above witness’s statement, it is difficult for the Defendant to recognize that he/she had driven otoba at the date and place indicated in the facts charged.

Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure

Public Prosecution Rejection Parts

- omitted

Judges Lee Jae-tae