The defendant is a police officer working in the Gwangju 00 Police Station and the strong criminal investigation team, who is engaged in the duty of driving 75 high-speed 75 high-speed 000 Grandroth criminal patrol vehicles.

On June 15, 2015, the defendant driving the above van at around 23:52 on June 15, 2015, and driving the mix 35-ro, amp-ro, amp-ro, amp-ro, amp-ro, amp-ro, amp-ro, amp-ro, amp-ro, amp-ro, amp-ro, amp-ro, amp-ro, amp-ro,

At this point, the signal apparatus of the red flag and the crosswalk were installed, so the defendant had a duty of care to temporarily stop prior to the entry into the intersection before the intersection and safely proceed with other traffic and prevent the accident in advance.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not temporarily stop before entering the intersection and did not temporarily stop, and the part of the victim Kim00 (the age of 30) who was in a direct way from the left side of the collision to the right side of the collision, driven by the yellow domine No. 5000 (the age of 30) in front of the right side of the passenger car at 50,000 K3.

Therefore, the Defendant suffered, from the above occupational negligence, the injury of the victim Kim Jong-sik, such as an unknown mash in detail due to cerebral blood, etc., and the injury of the victim Kim Jong-tae (the age of 57) who was accompanied by the said Costasch Rexroth Kim (the age of 57) in need of treatment for about two weeks, respectively.

2. Relevant statutes;

【The meaning of terms used in this Act is as follows: 22. The term "emergency motor vehicles" means the following motor vehicles used for their original emergency purposes: (d) Other motor vehicles specified by Presidential Decree (Obligation to follow signals and instructions) and drivers of motor vehicles and riders of horses passing along roads, shall follow signals and instructions conveyed or given by traffic safety facilities, and signals or instructions given by any of the following persons: < Amended by Act No. 2940, Feb. 2, 1999>

(1) The term "motor vehicles prescribed by Presidential Decree" in subparagraph 22 (d) of Article 2 of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") means any of the following motor vehicles used for emergency purposes: Provided, That the motor vehicles referred to in subparagraphs 6 through 11 shall be limited to cases designated by the Commissioner of the Local Police Agency at the request of a person, institution, etc. who uses it:

3. Facts of recognition;

According to the records, the following facts are recognized.

A. On June 15, 2015, around 23:14, 2015, the Defendant was ordered by two suspects who committed robbery of a taxi and convenience store in the 112 situation room of the Gwangju 00 Police Station, with a deadly weapon and went into Gwangju, to block the escape route and arrest the suspect.

B. Accordingly, the Defendant: (a) was able to see C while driving the said vehicle on the top of the steering force of the Grandroth Criminal Police Vehicle No. 75Da000; (b) was able to see C; and (c) was able to see the suspect by driving the said vehicle.

C. At the time, the suspect, while driving a taxi with a deadly weapon, led to the situation where the suspect's failure to comply with the police's demand for suspension and continued escape in the order of "Mining, IC, Seo-gu, Yangyang-dong 1, Yangyang-dong 1, 100, and 100, and the defendant was charged with the suspect when he was sent to the suspect's escape.

D. The Defendant received a vision to the effect that the final location of the suspect was confirmed as the location of the children's traffic park near the Gwangju Northern-gu high-tech district, and caused a traffic accident such as the entry (hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case") by negligence without temporarily suspending the intersection prior to entering the intersection, while proceeding along with the intersection in the facts charged in order to block the escape route and arrest the suspect.

E. After the instant accident, the Defendant and security C took relief measures against the victim at the site of the accident, and the suspects were arrested by other police officers at a place where the said accident site and 500 meters away.

F. Meanwhile, from June 15, 2016 to 23:00 the same day, the suspect was indicted in the case of this court 2015 Gohap210, 223 (merged) and was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for three years and six years, and four years, and the other suspect was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for four years, and the judgment became final and conclusive after the appellate court, on the ground that the suspect committed the crimes, such as two special larceny, one robbery, one robbery, and one robbery (the description that the part part of the taxi article, which is a deadly weapon, was damaged by several times and the taxi, etc., which is the victim), one robbery, and one special robbery.

4. Determination

A. The facts charged in the instant case are premised on the Defendant’s negligence of violating the signal signal set forth in Article 3(2)1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents. Moreover, as seen earlier, the Defendant was proceeding without temporarily stopping prior to entering the intersection even in the case of the signal of the red flag destruction, and the instant accident occurred.

B. However, Article 29 (2) of the Road Traffic Act recognizes the priority passage of emergency motor vehicles by stipulating that "emergency motor vehicles may stop in urgent and inevitable cases, notwithstanding the cases where it is required to stop in accordance with this Act or any order issued under this Act."

다. 우선 이 사건 사고 당시 피고인이 운전한 차량은, 위 인정사실에서 본 바와 같이 강도범인 검거 등 범죄수사, 그 밖의 긴급한 경찰업무 수행을 위하여 사이렌을 울리고 경광등을 켠 상태로 진행하고 있었으므로, 위 우선 통행 규정이 적용되는 긴급자동차 에 해당한다.

D. In addition, in light of the following circumstances recognized by the above facts, it is determined that there was an urgent and inevitable reason that the Defendant could not temporarily stop before entering the intersection, notwithstanding the signal of the red flag destruction at the time of the instant accident.

① At the time of the instant accident, the Defendant: (a) was in a situation in which the instant accident was committed with multiple recommendations robbery, etc., and led the suspect who was frighting to the road on a taxi with a deadly weapon; and (b) in particular, the crosssection entered in the official facts was closely adjacent to the final location of the suspect.

② At the time, suspects committed two special larcenys, one robbery, one robbery, one robbery, and one special robbery at the time. Accordingly, if police officers, including the Defendant, are unable to immediately arrest the suspects, they were likely to cause serious damage to the suspects due to additional crimes.

③ Although the Defendant and security guards were arrested by police officers other than the Defendant and security C, this is merely a situation after the instant accident occurred, and it cannot be denied that the Defendant was in an urgent situation at the time of the instant accident.

E. Therefore, the Defendant is not liable for the violation of signals pursuant to Article 29(2) of the Road Traffic Act. Accordingly, the instant facts charged merely constitutes a crime falling under Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and Article 268 of the Criminal Act. If a vehicle driven by the Defendant is covered by a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance, a public prosecution cannot be instituted pursuant to the main sentence of Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and even if the victim was seriously injured, a public prosecution cannot be instituted against the intent expressed by the victim pursuant to the main sentence of Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concern

F. However, according to the record, it is recognized that the vehicle driven by the Defendant was admitted to the comprehensive vehicle examination at the time of the instant accident, and further, the victim C expressed clearly his/her intention not to punish the Defendant on August 3, 2016, which is the date of the instant indictment, around June 30, 2015, and around August 3, 2016, the victim Kim00, after the instant indictment.

G. Thus, the facts charged of this case fall under "when the procedure for filing a public prosecution is invalidated in violation of the provisions of law" or "when there is an expression of intent not to prosecute a case that cannot be prosecuted against the clearly expressed intention of the victim, or when the declaration of intention not to prosecute a case has been withdrawn," and thus, the public prosecution is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 2 or subparagraph 6 of the same Article of the Criminal Procedure Act.