In a case where a public prosecution is instituted by applying Article 3(1) and proviso of Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and Article 268 of the Criminal Act, in principle, if, as a result of a trial, there is no ground provided for in the proviso of Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and it is impossible to institute a public prosecution on the grounds of the main sentence of

However, in cases where a trial on the substance of a case is completed and it is proved that there is no reason under the proviso of Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and it is not recognized that the defendant committed an offense under Article 3(1) of the same Act, even if there is a reason under Article 3(2) or the main sentence of Article 4(1) of the same Act, if the fact-finding court rendered a judgment of innocence on the facts charged under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents

(2) On October 24, 2003, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted the defendant on the ground that the defendant's vehicle was not guilty on the ground that the defendant's negligence in operating the vehicle in violation of the traffic signal caused the victim with snow unburging and open wound around the snow for two weeks. The court below determined that even according to all evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant caused the accident of this case by negligence in violation of the traffic accident management Act.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the record, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is the requirement for a judgment dismissing public prosecution or the conditions of lawsuit.