[2] The case holding that in a case where the defendant who is a driver of a motor vehicle did not install the vehicle aid, etc. on the crosswalk connected to the intersection, but pedestrians green, and the vehicle signal, etc. in the intersection are red, but inflicted bodily injury on the driver bypassing the intersection and taking a bicycle going through the crosswalk and going through the intersection, the case holding that the crime of causing bodily injury by occupational negligence is established due to the "violation of signal" under Article 3 (1) and proviso 3 (2) 1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents

[2] In a case where Defendant, a driver of a motor vehicle, did not install a vehicle aid, etc. at a crosswalk connected to the intersection, but the walking, etc. is green, and the vehicle signal, etc. at the intersection is red, and in a case where, after passing through the crosswalk and passing through the intersection, a bicycle going straight in the same direction as at the time when the crossing was obstructed, and was inflicted an injury on the driver, the case held that the judgment below erred by misapprehending legal principles as to the obligation of signals or instructions under the Road Traffic Act, which dismissed the Defendant, on the ground that, in such a case as above, the Defendant was obliged to stop at the crosswalk stop at the intersection and is prohibited from going through the intersection, while going through the intersection, it is reasonable to view that there was an accident while bypassing, and that there was a direct causal relationship between the act of bypassing the signal and the accident, and therefore, the above accident constitutes the crime of occupational injury caused by the signal violation under Article 3(1) and the proviso of Article 3(2)1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

1. Article 4 of the Road Traffic Act provides that “The types of traffic safety facilities, the method and place where traffic safety facilities are installed, and other necessary matters concerning traffic safety facilities shall be prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Public Administration and Security.” Article 6(2) [Attachment 2] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Public Administration and Security No. 156, Aug. 24, 2010; hereinafter “former Enforcement Rule”) provides that “the types of signals and signals indicated by signal apparatus” shall be stopped immediately before a stop line, crosswalk, and intersection: Provided, That the same shall not apply to the traffic of other vehicles and horses that are in line with the new subparagraph, and shall not be obstructed.”

However, in a case where an intersection and crosswalk are installed adjacent only to the intersection, the vehicle signal apparatus shall be deemed to not only walk the intersection but also walk the crosswalk immediately before the intersection. It shall not be deemed that there is no vehicle subsidy, etc. on the side of the crosswalk, such as walking on the crosswalk, and thus, it shall not be deemed that there is no vehicle signal, etc. for the crosswalk. In such a case, the red light of the vehicle on the intersection is also ordered to stop on the intersection and crosswalk before the intersection. In addition, if the walking on the crosswalk is a green, all vehicles shall stop on the crosswalk, and further, if the walking on the crosswalk is installed, it shall not stop on the crosswalk, and if the walking on the crosswalk becomes changed in the red color and becomes disqualified, it shall not interfere with the traffic of other vehicles through the crosswalk, and if the cause for the above violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Traffic Accidents, such as Article 28 of the Road Traffic Accidents, etc., which is beyond the scope of the said Act, it shall not interfere with the traffic accident.

2. The court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which dismissed the prosecution of this case on the ground that even if the Defendant, who driven the vehicle in its holding, caused the instant accident to interfere with the traffic of the victim bicycle that was driven under the new subparagraph while bypassing the traffic when the signal apparatus for the vehicle is red at the Sam-distance intersection, the Defendant was not liable for the violation of signal prior to the bypass

However, according to the records, a crosswalk was installed adjacent to the above three-distance intersection, and there was no vehicle aid, but the walking, etc. installed was green, and the signal, etc. for the vehicle in the above three-distance intersection was red. Nevertheless, the defendant, however, did not stop on the above three-distance intersection and went through the crosswalk without stopping on the crosswalk, and then entered the intersection and go through the intersection, and caused the victim's injury to the victim.

Examining the above in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the above accident of this case occurred while bypassing the direction of the vehicle in the intersection, even though the defendant should stop at the crosswalk stop line and should not make bypass the intersection, and that there is a direct causal relation between the act of bypassing the signal and the occurrence of the above accident. Thus, the accident of this case constitutes the crime of occupational injury caused by the violation of signal under Article 3(1) and the proviso of Article 3(2)1 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents. Thus, the judgment of the court below that the defendant did not violate signal or instruction under the Road Traffic Act, and that the defendant constitutes the reason for dismissing the prosecution, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)