logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원강릉지원 2020.09.24 2020노152
도로교통법위반(음주운전)등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the Defendant’s “vehicles 500 vehicles” (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) driven by the Defendant by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is not an automobile under the Automobile Management Act, the Defendant cannot be punished for driving under the influence of alcohol under the Road Traffic Act.

In addition, the Defendant mispercing that the instant vehicle was an agricultural machine under the Agricultural Mechanization Promotion Act and was not punished for drunk driving even if driving the instant vehicle, and there are justifiable grounds therefor, the Defendant shall be dismissed from liability in accordance with Article 16 of the Criminal Act.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (eight months of imprisonment) on the ground of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the Defendant’s assertion that the instant vehicle constitutes an automobile under the Automobile Management Act, Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Automobile Management Act provides that “A vehicle means an instrument manufactured for the purpose of movement on land by an engine or an instrument manufactured for the purpose of movement on land by being towed (hereinafter “motor vehicle”): Provided, That those prescribed by Presidential Decree shall be excluded.” Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Automobile Management Act provides that “construction machinery under the Construction Machinery Management Act (Article 1), agricultural machinery under the Agricultural Mechanization Promotion Act (Article 2 subparag. 1), vehicles under the Act on the Management of Military Supplies (Article 2 subparag. 2), vehicles operated by tracks or by aerial lines (Article 4), and medical appliances (Article 5) under the Medical Devices Act (Article 5).

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the vehicle in this case is with engine engine engine engine engine engine engine engine engine engine engine engine engine engine displacement of 471cc and 65 km/h, and there is no limit on drivers to drive the vehicle and pass the road on the general road.

Therefore, the instant vehicle is based on the original motor stipulated in Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Automobile Management Act.

arrow