교통사고처리특례법위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for six months.
Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant made an unreasonable change in the course to make a U-turn while being aware that the U.S. is a U.S. prohibited zone, and accordingly the traffic accident of this case occurred, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant violated the signal as stated in the facts charged. Thus, the judgment of the court below dismissing the public prosecution of this case is erroneous in misapprehension of legal principles
2. Determination
A. The lower court determined that the Defendant violated the Defendant’s signal at the time of the accident on the sole basis of the evidence presented by the prosecutor, based on its stated reasoning.
It was insufficient to find that the duty of prohibition of internship was violated, and there was no other evidence to acknowledge it.
B. In full view of the provisions of Article 5 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 6(2) [Attachment 2] and Article 8(2) [Attachment 6] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, as a whole, U-turns in the intersection where only green, yellow, and red yellow lights are installed with safety signs prohibiting U-turns, are not allowed. Thus, in a case where a U-turns are proceeding with a green light that can only direct advancement and bypass, it shall be deemed that driving in violation of the signals indicated by signal apparatus under Article 5 of the Road Traffic Act, barring special circumstances.
The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., ① the place where the instant traffic accident occurred, i.e., the signal that only the green, yellow, and red blue lights emitted and the green light at the direction of the accident was turned down at the time of the accident at the intersection of the three-distance intersection where the sign prohibiting the internship was installed, and thus, the Defendant’s proceeding in order to walk within the intersection constitutes driving in violation of the signal signals displayed by the signal apparatus, barring special circumstances, and ② the Defendant green.