Whether the horse transport season is a motor vehicle as prescribed by Article 2 subparagraph 10 of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 3489 of Dec. 31, 1981) (negative)

A light rail connected to the loading of two wheelss shall be only the type of agricultural machinery as prescribed in Article 2 of the Agricultural Mechanization Promotion Act, and shall not fall under the motor vehicles listed in Article 2 subparagraph 10 of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 3489 of Dec. 31, 1981), Article 3 of the Road Transport Vehicles Act, and the attached Table 1 of Article 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act.

Article 2 of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 3489, Dec. 31, 1981); Article 2 of the Agricultural Mechanization Promotion Act; Article 3 of the Road Transport Vehicles Act; Article 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Transport Vehicles Act; Article 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Transport Vehicles

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 84No4508 delivered on November 15, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

1. Article 38 of the Road Traffic Act provides that no person shall drive a vehicle without obtaining a driver's license from the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayor or Do governor as provided in Article 5 (1). Article 39 (1) of the same Act provides that no person shall drive a vehicle, etc. while being driven, even though he is a driver's license, Article 75 of the same Act provides that a person who drives an automobile in violation of the provisions of subparagraph 1 through Article 38 of the same Act and a person who violates the provisions of subparagraph 2 through Article 39 (1) of the same Act shall be punished, and Article 2 subparagraph 10 of the same Act provides that the definition of the terms used in the Road Traffic Act shall be defined as meaning of the automobile, and Article 3 of the Road Traffic Act provides that the act of the defendant shall be defined as part of a motor vehicle with the driver's license under the provisions of the attached Table 1 of the Road Traffic Act, which shall be defined as one of the ordinary motor of the automobile and the ordinary motor of the automobile shall be defined as one of Article 3 of the Road Transport Act.

2. However, the first instance judgment maintained by the court below is only a kind of agricultural machinery as provided in Article 2 of the Agricultural Mechanization Promotion Act, and the second instance judgment is not a motor vehicle as provided in attached Table 1 of Article 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Transport Vehicles Act, and the second instance judgment cannot be a violation of Article 38 and Article 39 (1) of the Road Traffic Act because it is not a motor vehicle as provided in attached Table 1 of Article 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Transport Vehicles Act, because it was done by the defendant even after examining the kinds of motor vehicles as provided in attached Table 1 of Article 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Transport Vehicles Act. There is no misapprehension of legal principles

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice) Gangwon-young Kim Young-ju