교통사고처리특례법위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error or misunderstanding of legal principles) is that the Defendant intended to make a U-turn while being aware that it was a U-turn prohibited zone, and accordingly, the instant traffic accident occurred, and even if the Defendant’s act cannot be seen as a violation of signal, it can be seen as a violation of prohibition of overtaking, the Defendant may be fully convicted of the facts charged in the instant case.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which dismissed the prosecution of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person engaging in driving Cwon passenger buses.
Around 06:05 on April 7, 2013, the Defendant driven the bus and proceeded at a speed of about 20 km from the 4-lane parallel in front of the border university located in Seocheon-dong, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-do at a speed of about 20 km each hour, depending on two lanes from the scar-si.
The driver of a vehicle at an intersection where a three-dimensional signal apparatus and a sign of no internship are installed has a duty of care to prevent accidents in advance by proceeding as the signal apparatus and the sign are well reported and the direction of the signal apparatus and the sign is instructed by the signal apparatus and the signboard.
Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and caused the Defendant to have the left part of the bus driven by the Defendant with the part of the victim D(32 years of age) E driving or the front part of the passenger car, which is driven by the Defendant, in contravention of the signal apparatus and the sign prohibiting the U-turn in a straight line.
Ultimately, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim, such as 2, 3, and 5, which require approximately 12 weeks of treatment due to such occupational negligence.
B. The lower court determined as follows: ① First, as to whether the Defendant violated Article 62 of the Road Traffic Act, and the Road Traffic Act.