(영문) 대법원 1986. 12. 9. 선고 86도1868 전원합의체 판결[교통사고처리특례법위반][집34(3)형,605;공1987.2.1.(793),185]
Whether operating a motor vehicle without temporarily stopping 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 instruction of safety signs indicating temporary suspension under Article 3(2)1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents."
According to the attached Table 1 of Article 3 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act that provides for the type, method of making, indication, installation standards and location of safety signs under the Road Traffic Act, the sign No. 706 shall indicate the point to be suspended in the case of the suspension line marking and indication in the item column of the suspension line, and it shall be installed in the place to be suspended if it is necessary to stop in the installation standards and the location column. Thus, the suspension line marking No. 706 above shall not themselves indicate the duty of temporary suspension, but it shall be a safety sign indicating that it is the point to stop in the case of the suspension of operation. Even if the vehicle operator operates a vehicle without temporary suspension at the crosswalk with only the suspension line No. 706 of the above Enforcement Rule, it does not constitute the case of operating the vehicle in violation of the direction of safety signs indicating the temporary suspension.
[Binding Force Judgment: 85.C. 12. 84Do2208 decided Dec. 12, 200]
Article 3 (2) 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, the proviso to Article 3 (2) 1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents
Supreme Court Decision 84Do2204 delivered on February 26, 1985, Supreme Court Decision 84Do2208 delivered on March 12, 1985
Defendant
Prosecutor
Busan District Court Decision 86No362 delivered on July 11, 1986
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 stipulating the type, method of making, indication, installation standards and location of safety signs under the Road Traffic Act, the sign No. 706 No. 706 shall be indicated in the item column of the suspension line, and the sign shall be placed in the location where the suspension line is to be suspended if it is necessary to be suspended in the installation standards and the location column. Thus, the suspension line sign No. 706 is not indicated in itself as a temporary suspension obligation, but it is a safety sign indicating that it is a point to be stopped in the event of the suspension of operation (see Supreme Court Decision 84Do2204 delivered on February 26, 1985). It is against the above opinion. Accordingly, even if the driver of the vehicle drives the vehicle in violation of the above Enforcement Rule No. 706 on March 12, 1985, it is not a case where it is temporarily suspended under the proviso of Article 3 (2) 1 of the Road Traffic Safety Act.
In the same purport, the court below's ruling maintained the first instance court's ruling that the mark of the suspension line No. 706 does not constitute a safety mark with the 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 error of law by misunderstanding legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit. The argument is groundless.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Justice)