[교통사고처리특례법위반][공1985.4.15.(750),501]
Whether the operation of a motor vehicle without a temporary stop at a crosswalk with only serial number 706 of the attached Table 1 of Article 3(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act constitutes "in the case of operating a motor vehicle in violation of the direction of a stability sign indicating a temporary suspension as stated in Article 3(2)1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents" (negative)
According to the attached Table 1 of Article 3(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act that provides for the type, form, and indication of safety signs under the Road Traffic Act, the sign of a stop line under Article 706 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act shall be installed at the location where the vehicle should be temporarily stopped by indicating the place where the vehicle is to be stopped. The above stop line mark itself does not indicate that it is the duty of temporary suspension, but it is a safety sign indicating that it is the place to be stopped when the vehicle is to temporarily stop. Thus, even if the vehicle operator operates the vehicle without temporary suspension in the crosswalk where the above stop line is only marked, it shall not be deemed to fall under the case of operating the vehicle in violation of the direction of safety signs indicating the temporary suspension.
The attached Table 1 of Article 3 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, the proviso of Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents
Defendant
Prosecutor
Daegu District Court Decision 84No609 delivered on June 29, 1984
The appeal is dismissed.
We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.
According to the annexed Table 1 of Article 3 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act which provides the type, form and display of safety signs under the Road Traffic Act, the installation standards and the contents of the place of installation, the serial number No. 224 shall be set up on the right side of the intersection where a motor vehicle needs to temporarily stop for the purpose of indicating the designation of the place where the motor vehicle needs to temporarily stop. The temporary suspension sign No. 614 is set up at the intersection, the crosswalk, and the crosswalk, etc., at two or three meters of the place where a motor vehicle needs to temporarily stop, and the suspension line sign No. 706 shall be set up at the location where a vehicle needs to temporarily stop for the purpose of indicating the place where the vehicle needs to temporarily stop.
In light of the above safety marks, installation standards and place of installation, etc., the temporary suspension marks of Nos. 224 and 614 are safety signs indicating the vehicle driver's duty of temporary suspension in the place of installation, but the suspension line marks of Nos. 706 do not themselves indicate the vehicle driver's duty of temporary suspension. However, even if the vehicle driver operated the vehicle without temporary suspension in the crosswalk where only the suspension line mark of No. 706 of the above Enforcement Rule is used, it cannot be viewed as "in the case of operating the vehicle in violation of the direction of safety signs indicating the temporary suspension for the purpose of temporary suspension" of Article 3 (2) 1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.
According to the facts duly established by the court below, the point of accident of this case is a crosswalk where only a stop line sign corresponding to 706% of the attached Table 1 of Article 3 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act is installed, and the defendant operated a motor vehicle at a speed of 40 kilometers a speed of 40 kilometers a hour without temporarily suspending at the same location, and he suffered injury to the victim who illegally crossed about 6 meters a roadway from the left side of the crosswalk without permission. Thus, the so-called "the case of driving the motor vehicle in violation of the direction of safety signs indicating a temporary suspension" under Article 3 (2) 1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents is just and there is no misapprehension of legal principles as to the theory of lawsuit.
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)