In a case where the intersection and crosswalk are installed adjacent to the intersection, and the vehicle signal apparatus is installed only at the intersection, the vehicle signal apparatus is not only for the vehicle along the intersection but also for the road immediately preceding the intersection. The signal signal, etc. on the crosswalk in the front of the point where the accident occurred, in which the defendant was in progress, is a pedestrian driving signal, and the vehicle signal in the intersection in the direction of the defendant's running, is a red light, and the vehicle signal in the direction of the passage of the defendant is a red light, but the defendant has to stop on the crosswalk but failed to stop on the crosswalk, and thus, he was faced with the victim. Nevertheless, the court below denied the defendant's signal violation and dismissed the prosecution of this case. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the signals of signal apparatus, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

The court below denied the defendant who caused the accident while bypassing to the red signal of the third-distance intersection on the ground that, in principle, motor vehicles and horses entering the intersection for the purpose of allowing bypassing a red signal, allow bypassing a red signal to ensure smooth traffic flow, but imposes safety obligations to keep the traffic in mind so as not to obstruct the traffic in order to protect the trust of other motor vehicles already operated under the new signal, and that in the event of an accident in the course of bypassing, it is not intended to hold the defendant liable for the traffic accident under Article 3 (2) 1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents in the event of an accident in the course of bypassing, the court below's decision is just and acceptable. In light of the reasoning and record of the court below, the court below's decision is justified.

Although it is recognized that the defendant used the crosswalk in violation of the signal at the crosswalk immediately before the crossing entry, the accident of this case occurred due to the collision with the bicycle of the victim's driver who used the crosswalk bypassing the crosswalk at a three-distance intersection after about 8 meters of the defendant's vehicle. Thus, there is no proximate causal relation between the signal violation in the front stop line of the crosswalk and the accident of this case, and the case cited by the prosecutor (Supreme Court Decision 97Do1835 delivered on October 10, 197) is related to the accident that occurred above the crosswalk prior to the intersection entry, and it is not appropriate to use the matter different from the case of this case.

Therefore, there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as pointed out by the prosecutor in the judgment below, and the prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jae-Gyeong (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge)