[교통사고처리특례법위반][공1985.11.1.(763),1366]
Whether the driver violates the duty to protect pedestrians in the crosswalks of the motor vehicle, which is speeded in front of the crosswalks, and which is not stopped;
If the signal at the time of the occurrence of the traffic accident was sent to the vehicle, even if the traffic signal is on the crosswalk in which the traffic signal is paid, it cannot be said that the driver violated the duty to protect pedestrians in the crosswalk as provided in subparagraph 3 of Article 44 of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 3744 of Aug. 4, 1984) on the ground that the driver did not be bound or stopped in front of the crosswalk.
Article 44 subparagraph 3 of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 3744 of Aug. 4, 1984)
Defendant
Prosecutor
Daegu District Court Decision 84No750 delivered on February 4, 1985
The appeal is dismissed.
We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance that declared the dismissal of prosecution pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that the defendant does not fall under any of the proviso of Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents because the defendant does not fall under any of the subparagraphs of Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and the defendant cannot be prosecuted pursuant to Article 4 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents because the defendant cannot be prosecuted pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that the records of the court below are justified and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the error of law or rules of evidence, since the traffic signal at the time of the occurrence of the traffic accident in this case is recognized as the vehicle progress signal at the time of the occurrence of the traffic accident in this case, and the records of the court below are justified and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to mistake or rules of experience.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)