In a case where the Defendant, a driver of a motor vehicle, was indicted for violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents on the ground that he/she had inflicted an injury on Party A by shocking the ozone layer of Party A’s driving, which had been normally driven in accordance with a straight-on signal in the front part of the motor vehicle, beyond a white-onton display line within the U.S. permissible zone in accordance with safety signs regularly allowing a U.S., the case holding that the said traffic accident cannot be deemed as an accident against the central line under Article 3(2)2

In a case where the Defendant, a driver of a motor vehicle, was indicted for violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents because he/she had injured Party A by shocking Party A’s ozone layer, which was normally driven in accordance with a straight-line signal in the U.S.A., in accordance with safety signs that allow U.S. full time a U.S. internship, the case held that the above traffic accident cannot be deemed to have been caused by a traffic accident under Article 2 subparag. 2 subparag. 3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, on the following grounds: (a) although the special Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents means a white domin line in the U.S., the central line does not refer to all traffic accidents beyond the central line; (b) the traffic accident occurred between the accident involving the collision and the accident involving U.S. that occurred in U.S. without sufficiently considering the degree and possibility of criticism of the perpetrator’s fault in the opposite lane’s duty of care at the permissible point of U.S.

Article 3(1) and (2)2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 4(1) of the same Act, Article 268 of the Criminal Act, Article 327 subparag. 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Republic of Korea, Republic of Korea and 1 other

Daegu District Court Decision 2015Gohap263 decided January 12, 2016

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

The accident of this case constitutes a central collision accident stipulated in Article 3(2)2 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

2. Determination

A. Whether the defendant invadeds the central line

According to safety signs that allow the internship to be constantly, the Defendant exceeded the white domin line in the U.S. permissible zone.

Although the center line prescribed by the Road Traffic Act in the part of the road crossing by the defendant is not maintained, considering the following circumstances, it is deemed that the center line has the meaning of the center line in the white line in the U.S. P. P. S. P. 1).

(1) There is a median line which has been kept in yellow solid lines before and after the above white lines of about three meters crossing by the defendant.

② There are cases where the central line is not maintained in a crosswalk where the central line is recognized (see Supreme Court Decisions 2000Do5848, Feb. 9, 2001; 201Do12093, Feb. 9, 2012).

③ If it is deemed that the center line does not have the meaning on the above white line, it would result in the occurrence of so long as it is impossible to apply the center line to a scambling under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents in the event of an accident beyond the above white line on the opposite lane. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the vehicle line installed at the center of the road, which is marked as the one-way road, other than the one-way road, concurrently serves as the center line.

B. Whether the accident of this case constitutes a Central Line Offense Accident stipulated in Article 3(2)2 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents

The traffic accident under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents refers to the case where the traffic accident occurred due to the act of driving a motor vehicle in the center line of a road, that is, the case where the act of intrusion by the center line directly causes the occurrence of the traffic accident. If the act of intrusion by the center line is not the direct cause of the occurrence of the traffic accident, it does not include the case where the traffic accident occurred during the operation of the center line (see Supreme Court Decision 94Do1200, Jun. 28, 1994).

In light of the following circumstances, this case is merely caused by negligence in the course of performing the duty of care to be observed by the defendant at the point where the internship is permitted, and cannot be deemed to have been directly caused by negligence in the operation of the central line. Therefore, the accident of this case cannot be deemed as an accident of the central line under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

① Under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, an accident at the center of a traffic accident shall be limited to a certain case, not to refer to all cases beyond the center line (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do832, Jul. 28, 1998).

② There is a difference between the perpetrator’s fault and the possibility of criticism between the accident that happens in the section where a U-turn is permitted, as in this case, in the course where a U-turn is allowed.

③ According to the former Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, the left-hand turn is applied to a non-protective left-hand turn in the area where the accident occurred, but the above Rule was amended to make it not to be applied to the signal violation. Therefore, insofar as other negligence did not conflict, the victim would turn to the left-hand turn in the non-protective area where the left-hand turn was not much different from the victim, and the victim would not be subject to criminal punishment if there is a comprehensive insurance or if there is an agreement with the victim. However, if the instant case is considered to be a centralized offense, it is similar to the content and degree of the duty of care to turn to the left-hand turn at the time of an accident in the U.S. at ordinary U.S. area, such as the instant case, even though it is similar to the content and degree of the accident in the U.S. and the accident in the non-protective

④ There is no perception that a person who makes a U.S. internship in a U.S. permissible zone would generally be ‘influence of a central line.' This means entering an area in which a U.S. is not permitted, because a U.S.ton in a permissible zone for U.S.

⑤ There is no restriction on the time when a U-turn is permitted as in the instant case, and there is a restriction on the time when a U-turn is permitted, such as when a U-turn is sent to the left-hand turn. However, if the instant case is considered as a median, the left-hand turn turn turn turn turn to the district in which a U-turn is permitted at the time of signal to the left-hand turn is located, just as in the event the accident occurred, it is difficult to regard the U-turn as a crime against the central line. In light of the degree of negligence of the U.S., even in the event of an accident involving a U-turn according to normal signals, it is not reasonable to regard

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-sung (Presiding Judge)

1) Therefore, it is unreasonable that the lower court stated that the instant white do not constitute the central line under Article 2 subparag. 5 of the Road Traffic Act.