The accused shall notify publicly the summary of the judgment of innocence.

Although the Defendant engaged in an overwork or changing course as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, it does not constitute a sckless driving as prescribed by the Road Traffic Act, since it is unlikely to cause harm to others or cause danger to traffic.

2. Summary of the facts charged

The driver of any motor vehicle, etc. shall accurately operate the steering gear, brakes and other devices, and shall not drive a motor vehicle at such a speed or in such a manner as to inflict any danger and injury on other persons according to the traffic conditions of the road and the structure and performance of the motor vehicle, and shall not drive a motor vehicle, etc., and shall not cause any danger or injury to other persons, or cause any danger or injury to other persons, by having committed two or more acts, from among the violations of signal or instructions, the median of the central line, the maintenance of a safe distance, the prohibition of changing course, or the

Nevertheless, on May 26, 2018, from around 08:18 to 08:25, the Defendant, while driving a B-learning car from around 23 meters to 36km along the direction of Seoul metropolitan direction, continued to engage in speed violations exceeding 100km of the speed limit, and continued to commit an act of avoiding the speed limit of 100km while overtaking other vehicles, without securing the safety distance, and caused danger to traffic by causing other vehicles by accelerating speed or changing course. Accordingly, the Defendant repeatedly committed an act of speed violations, etc., thereby causing danger to other persons or causing danger to traffic.

3. The judgment of the court below

The court below found the defendant guilty on the charges of this case on the ground that the defendant's act constituted "an act of causing danger to traffic" as provided in Article 46-3 of the Road Traffic Act by taking into account the defendant's partial statement in court and the video materials of scar

4. Judgment of the court below

A. Relevant legal provisions

Article 46-3 of the Road Traffic Act provides that no driver of a motor vehicle shall threaten or endanger other persons or cause danger to traffic by consecutively committing two or more acts among the acts of violating signal, violating speed and violating methods of overtaking, etc., or by continuing or repeating one act, and Article 151-2 of the same Act provides that a driver of a motor vehicle, etc. who drives a motor vehicle in violation of Article 46-3 shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than one year or by a fine not exceeding five million won.

Examining the contents of this provision, it is clear that this crime is a separate constituent element of "in addition to continuing or repeating two or more of the acts listed in any subparagraph of Article 46-3 of the same Act, or continuing or repeating one another, to threaten or endanger others, or to cause danger to traffic." In light of the purport of "influence or danger to others, or to cause danger to traffic" and the legislative purport of this crime, it is reasonable to deem that "influent danger to traffic" as mentioned above refers to a specific and significant danger exceeding the traffic danger inherent in any act listed in any subparagraph of Article 46-3 of the same Act.

B. Determination

According to the records of this case, it is acknowledged that the defendant continuously driven over seven minutes in excess of 100 km speed per hour, and that the defendant did not sufficiently secure the safety distance with the vehicle ahead or turn on the direction, etc., and according to the above facts, the defendant seems to somewhat obstruct the normal passage of other vehicles in violation of the obligation to secure the safety distance as prescribed by the Road Traffic Act, change of course, method of passing ahead, etc.

However, in light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to readily conclude that the aforementioned circumstances or the evidence presented by the prosecutor alone constituted a concrete and considerable traffic danger due to the Defendant’s act, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act and by misunderstanding the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

① In light of the instant facts charged through video data, even if the Defendant changed the lanes on several occasions by violating the duty to observe a speed limit and ensure a safe distance, change of course, and overtaking method, etc., it does not seem that the Defendant’s occurrence of a specific risk to the traffic situation of the relevant road beyond an abstract risk removed from the instant offense.

(2) It is difficult to readily conclude that Defendant’s act interfered with the operation of other vehicles or caused danger to other vehicles, given that there are no circumstances such as sudden change of direction for driving or driving due to Defendant’s act.

3. Conclusion

Since the appeal by the defendant is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the following judgment shall be

【Judgment Co., Ltd.】 The summary of the facts charged in this case is as stated in paragraph (2) above, and the facts charged in this case fall short of evidence of crime on the ground of the above Paragraph (4) above, and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition with the decision of not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of this judgment pursuant to the main sentence of Article 58

Judge Yellow-il

Judges Lee Byung-chul