As such, the Road Traffic Act subject to punishment for traffic accidents caused by passing along the right side of the center line or the center line, and passing along the center line, is aimed at ensuring the safe operation and smooth traffic of vehicles and horses operating in the opposite direction each other in compliance with each other’s running direction. As such, in a case where the left-hand turn or U-turn is allowed in any area of a road where the center line is installed with yellow solid lines or yellow domin lines, and the center line is marked in white domin lines, the traffic accidents that conflict with the vehicle operating in the opposite direction while driving in excess of the center line for left-hand turn or U-turn in accordance with safety signs, such as signal conditions allowing left-hand turn or U-turn at the point shall not be deemed to be a crudented accident as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

1. The main sentence of Article 2 subparagraph 5 of the Road Traffic Act provides that "in order to clearly separate the direction of passage of motor vehicles and horses, it means a line indicated with safety signs, such as yellow solid lines and yellow domin lines, or facilities installed with medians or fences, etc. of the median lines or barriers, etc." Article 13 (3) of the Road Traffic Act provides that "motor vehicles and riders of horses shall pass along the center (in cases where a median line is installed, referring to the center line) of the road (in cases where a road is divided into sidewalks and roadways, referring to the center line)" and Article 3 (1) and the former part of Article 3 (2) 2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents provides that "in cases of committing a crime under Article 268 of the Criminal Act due to a traffic accident "in violation of Article 13 (3) of the Road Traffic Act," the crime

As such, the Road Traffic Act subject to punishment for traffic accidents caused by passing along the right side of the center line or the center line and passing along the center line is intended to ensure the safe operation and smooth traffic of vehicles and horses operating in the opposite direction each other in compliance with each other. Thus, in a case where the left-hand turn or U-turns are allowed in any area of a road where the center line is installed with yellow solid lines or yellow yellow domin lines, and the center line is marked in white domin lines, the traffic accidents that conflict with the vehicle operating in the opposite direction while driving in excess of the center line for left-hand turn or U-turns in accordance with safety signs, such as signal conditions allowing left-hand turn or U-turns at that point, are not considered as a central course-setting accident as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

2. The summary of the facts charged in this case is as follows: (a) around 22:15 on June 15, 2015, at around 22:2:15, the Defendant driven a K5 car with the median line (vehicle No. 1 omitted); (b) proceeded ahead of the front line of the road, the front line of the road, the front line of the road, the front line of the road, the front line of the road, and the front line of the road, which was going to the legal interest. The front line is a private-distance intersection where traffic control is performed; and (c) there is a central line allowing the U.S. to the road. Accordingly, the Defendant incurred an injury to the right-hand side of the victim, the front line of which is the right-hand side of the victim, who was driven by the central line on the red signal while driving it in the U.S. in a proper manner in accordance with the straight line, without neglecting the duty of care to prevent the normal passage of other vehicles, and caused the collision between the victim and the victim.

3. On the other hand, the court below rejected the prosecutor's assertion that the instant accident was a breach of duty of care to be observed by the Defendant in making a U.S. at the permissible location of U.S., and maintained the first instance judgment dismissing the prosecution against the Defendant, by rejecting the prosecutor's assertion that the instant accident was a breach of duty of care to be observed by the Defendant in making a U.S., at the permissible location of U.S., in light of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the instant accident was caused only by negligence in performing a U.S. duty of care to be observed by the Defendant in making a U.S., and cannot be deemed to have been caused by a direct cause in the operation of the U.S., which is a breach of duty of care.

In light of the aforementioned legal principles and the records, since the Defendant’s act of making a U.S. intern beyond a white domin line within the U.S. permissible zone pursuant to safety signs allowing full time a U.S.ton does not constitute an act of breaking the central line, the lower court’s reasoning is somewhat inappropriate. However, the lower court’s conclusion that the instant accident did not constitute an accident against the central line is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal,

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed by the assent of all participating Justices. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kwon Soon-il (Presiding Justice)