In full view of the provisions of subparagraphs 1 (d), 2, 3, and 8 of Article 2 of the Road Traffic Act, bicycle lanes are included in the concept of "road" under the Road Traffic Act, and the concept of "vehicles", "lanes", "lanes", and "vehicles" as defined in subparagraphs 4, 6, and 7 of Article 2 of the Road Traffic Act apply to bicycle lanes. Since only a single lane runs along the bicycle lane, the defendant has been negligent in driving the bicycle in violation of the provision on the prohibition of parallel driving as stipulated in Article 13-2 (5) of the Road Traffic Act, and the defendant's driving of the bicycle on the roadside began with the bicycle route, and thus, the defendant is not obliged to pay due attention to safe speed and method depending on the speed and speed of the bicycle and other road conditions of the defendant's bicycle, and thus, the defendant's failure to comply with the above provision of the duty of due care to prevent collision between the bicycle and the defendant's failure to perform his duty of care (Article 21 (1) and (2) of the Road Traffic Act) of this Act).

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in the old house for the period calculated by converting 100,000 won into one day.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

At around 14:50 on August 10, 2018, the Defendant operated the above bicycle and proceeded the bicycle exclusive way way in front of Ulsan ( Address 1 omitted) with a criminal seal from the front side.

At the time, the victim non-indicted 1 (year 52, female), who is the defendant's seat at the time, operated the bicycle along with the defendant, so the defendant has a duty of care to operate the bicycle with a sufficient safety distance in order to prevent the victim's collision with the bicycle and to prevent the victim from driving the bicycle.

Nevertheless, the victim non-indicted 1 operated a bicycle ton on the front side of the defendant, without securing a sufficient distance from the bicycle of the victim who driven on the right side, on the bicycle-only side, without securing a sufficient distance from the bicycle of the victim who driven on the right side, and without getting the victim to the front side of the bicycle operated by the victim himself due to the driver's negligence, the victim does not avoid entering the front side of the bicycle operated by the defendant, and without getting the front side of the bicycle, the part of the victim's front wheels of the above her ton left side of the bicycle was shocked to the front side of the above her driver's bicycle, and the victim exceeded the victim on the road at around 12:20 on August 20, 2018.

1. Each police protocol on Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 3, and Nonindicted 4

1. A traffic accident report, a actual survey report, on-site, and bicycle photographs, and a CD;

1. A death certificate or a photograph of a dead person;

1. Responses to the traffic accident analysis request and replys to the request for appraisal;

Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 268 of the Criminal Act

1. Selection of punishment;

Selection of Fines

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Since the application of the provisions related to the “road” under the Road Traffic Act does not apply to the bicycle lane, the parallel traffic under the Road Traffic Act is permitted, and the provisions related to the obligation to ensure the safety distance under the Road Traffic Act does not apply to the parallel traffic. Furthermore, the instant accident occurred due to the victim’s entry into the direction of the Defendant’s own course, and thus, the Defendant is not at fault.

2. Determination

A. Whether the concept of “roadway” is applied to the bicycle lane under the Road Traffic Act

In light of the fact that Article 2 subparagraph 1 (d) of the Road Traffic Act defines the scope of "road" as a place open to the public for the safe and smooth flow of traffic of many and unspecified persons, or vehicles and horses, where it is necessary to ensure the safe and smooth flow of traffic, by deeming that it falls under "road", and that Article 2 subparagraph 2, 3, and 8 of the Road Traffic Act define the meaning of "road" as an expression, while distinguishing motorways, expressways, and bicycle lanes from each other, the bicycle lane also is included in the concept of "road" as defined in subparagraph 1 of Article 2 of the Road Traffic Act, and is subject to the provisions related to "road" of the Road Traffic Act. However, if special provisions on the bicycle lane exist, it is treated differently from the ordinary road. Accordingly, the concept of "road road", "lanes", "lanes", and "vehicles" as defined in subparagraphs 4, 6, and 7 of Article 2 of the Road Traffic Act also apply to the bicycle lane.

Article 13-2 (5) of the Road Traffic Act provides that "no more than two bicycle riders shall pass along the roadways, except where the passage of bicycles is permitted with safety marking." This applies to bicycle riders' driving along the bicycle lane.

According to the above evidence, the defendant can recognize the fact that only a single lane was driven with the victim on the bicycle lane, and the defendant is negligent in driving a bicycle in violation of the prohibition of parallel driving as prescribed by the Road Traffic Act. Ultimately, this part of the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion is not accepted.

(b) Whether there is no obligation to secure a safe distance in the case of bottled driving;

As seen earlier, only a single lane is installed on the bicycle lane of this case, so the defendant cannot drive concurrently.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the facts that the victim who was going to go to the roadside are revealed. In this case, the defendant can go to the left side of the victim's bicycle at a safe speed and in a safe manner depending on the speed and route of the victim's bicycle and other road conditions (Article 21 (1) and (2) of the Road Traffic Act), or pass to the victim's bicycle at a necessary distance to avoid collision with the victim's bicycle (Article 19 (2) of the Road Traffic Act).

However, according to the above evidence, even if the defendant's assertion is based on the defendant's assertion, the victim's actual ability to drive the bicycle still has been proved to the extent that the defendant could not properly cope with the sudden situation (Evidence No. 152 pages), but the defendant spawd with the victim, and as a matter of course, the defendant has a duty to operate the bicycle with a sufficient safety distance in order to prevent collision with the victim's bicycle. Ultimately, this part of the defendant and the defense counsel's assertion is

C. Whether the instant accident was wholly attributable to the victim’s negligence

As seen earlier, there exists a possibility that the Defendant could sufficiently avoid the instant accident if he/she complied with the Defendant’s duty of care. Thus, even if there was the victim’s negligence in the occurrence of the instant accident, the Defendant cannot be entirely exempted from the said duty of care or the Defendant cannot be held liable for the result of the instant accident. Ultimately, this part of the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion is rejected.

Judges’ or higher leaves