[교통사고처리특례법위반][공2005.1.1.(217),61]
Measures to be taken by the court where there is no violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, while it is revealed that there is no violation of the Act.
With respect to a traffic accident causing injury to a person by driving a vehicle in violation of the signal, it is revealed that there is a reason under Article 3(1) and proviso of Article 3(2)1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and that there is no fact that the defendant operated the vehicle in violation of the signal in the trial proceedings. Meanwhile, since the vehicle operated by the defendant at the time of the traffic accident is covered by the comprehensive automobile insurance under the main sentence of Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, it constitutes a case where a public prosecution is instituted in violation of the main sentence of Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and therefore, the indictment procedure under Article 327 subparag. 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act constitutes a case where the indictment procedure is null and void in violation of the provisions of the Act. In such case, even if it was proved that the defendant did not have any duty of care in relation to the above traffic accident, it is not immediately acquitted, but it should be sentenced to a dismissal
Article 3(1) and (2), and Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents; Article 327 subparag. 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Doz., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)
Defendant
Prosecutor
Gwangju District Court Decision 2003No1233 Decided June 30, 2004
The judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance are reversed. The prosecution of this case is dismissed.
1. The court below rejected the credibility for the reasons stated in its reasoning with respect to the conciliation ceremony, Kim Jong-hwan and the police statements in Ansan-do and the statements in the court of first instance or the court of original instance, which correspond to the facts charged in the instant case where the defendant committed a signal violation, and the defendant's statements in the accident scene at the time of the accident, Kim Yong-sik, who was a police officer controlling the vehicle's traffic signal violation at the time of the accident site, cannot be viewed as excluding all reasonable doubt as to the fact that the defendant committed a signal violation only by the statement in the memorial path in light of the statements in Cho Jae-young, and the remaining evidences alone are insufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant committed a signal violation, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this violation. In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below
2. However, the court below held that there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents concerning the charges of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents that the defendant's negligence of operating the defendant in violation of a signal and caused the victim to suffer a light fluorum in need of two weeks' medical treatment, and reversed the judgment of the court of first instance and acquitted the defendant by applying
According to the records, this case is a traffic accident causing injury to a person by driving a vehicle in violation of the signal by stating that there is a reason under Article 3(1) and proviso of Article 3(2)1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents. However, as seen above, as a result of the deliberation in the trial proceedings, the defendant did not operate a vehicle in violation of the signal. Meanwhile, the vehicle operated by the defendant at the time of the traffic accident in this case is covered by a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance under the main sentence of Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (100 pages of investigation record). Thus, this case constitutes a case where a prosecution is instituted in violation of the main sentence of Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and therefore, the prosecution procedure under Article 327 subparag. 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act constitutes a case where
In such a case, the court should have sentenced the dismissal of prosecution on the ground of defects in the litigation conditions under Article 327 of the Criminal Procedure Act (see Supreme Court Decision 94Do1818, Oct. 14, 1994, etc.) even if it proves that the defendant has no duty of care in relation to the traffic accident of this case, and the court below acquitted the facts charged of this case on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact of the traffic signal violation, the court below erred by misapprehending the above legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.
3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, but this case is deemed sufficient to be judged based on the records of trial and the evidence examined up to the court below, and thus, it is decided directly by Article 396 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant and the summary of the facts charged of this case against the defendant are as shown in the judgment of the court below. Since the judgment of the court of first instance which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by mistake of facts against the rules of evidence, the ground for appeal pointing this out is with merit, and the indictment of this case constitutes a case where the procedure is null and void in violation of the provisions of law as seen earlier, and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Shin Shin-chul (Presiding Justice)