The case holding that a signal apparatus installed on the side of the crosswalk, such as pedestrian crossing, to instruct the method of proceeding to vehicles and horses passing through the intersection, shall be deemed to be a signal apparatus;

If pedestrian signals, etc. are installed respectively on both ends of the crosswalk for the traffic of the crosswalk, and the type e-mail signal apparatus toward the direction of the passing is separately installed on the side of the signal such as the signal, it is reasonable to view that the type e-mail signal apparatus is a signal apparatus that instructs the method of passing through the intersection to the motor vehicles and horses.

Articles 4 and 5 of the Road Traffic Act, attached Table 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, and proviso of Article 3(2)1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

A co-inspector;

Daejeon District Court Decision 93No1432 delivered on April 1, 1994

The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

1. 원심판결 이유에 의하면, 원심은, 이 사건 사고지점은 대전시내와 옥천을 연결하는 편도 2차선 도로와 판암동 주공 4단지 쪽으로의 편도 2차선 도로가 교차하는 "ㅓ"자형 삼거리로서, 대전시내 쪽의 도로상에는 차량정지선이 설치되어 있을 뿐 아무런 신호등이나 횡단보도가 설치되어 있지 않고, 주공 4단지 쪽의 도로상에는 횡단보도만 설치되어 있고 횡단보도 신호등이나 차량신호등은 설치되어 있지 않으며, 옥천쪽의 도로상에는 교차로에 연이어 횡단보도가 설치되어 있고, 위 횡단보도상에는 보행자 신호등과 아울러 차량의 직진, 주의, 정지만을 표시하는 녹색, 황색, 적색의 횡형삼색신호등(이하 이 사건 신호등이라 한다)이 차도측 양측면에 서로 반대방향(대전시내 쪽과 옥천 쪽으로)을 향하여 각 1개씩 설치되어 있는데, 그 곳에 설치된 횡단보도 보행자 신호등이 녹색신호일 때에는 적색신호를 , 적색신호일 때에는 녹색신호를 표시하고 있는 사실, 한편 이 사건 교차로상에는 중앙선을 비롯한 차선이나 비보호좌회전표시 등 특별히 좌회전을 허용 또는 금지하는 표시가 설치되어 있지 아니한 사실 등을 인정한 다음, 옥천 쪽 도로상 횡단보도의 보행등 측면에 설치되어 있는 종형 이색등은 이 사건 신호등을 보조하는 신호기에 불과하고, 이 사건 신호등은 어디까지나 횡단보도상을 통행하는 보행자를 보호하기 위하여 차마로 하여금 횡단보도에 진입하거나 그전에 정지하도록 지시하는 신호기로 봄이 상당하고, 이를 교차로 통행방법까지 지시하는 신호기로 볼 수는 없으므로, 위 교차로는 신호기가 없는 교차로인 셈이 되어 위 교차로에서 좌회전하려는 차마는 이 사건 신호등의 신호가 어떤 것이든 간에 도로교통법 제22조 에 규정된 교차로 통행방법에 따라서 좌회전할 수 있다고 판단하여, 대전시내 쪽에서 녹색신호를 받고 좌회전하다가 이 사건 교통사고를 일으킨 피고인에 대해 신호위반이 아님을 이유로 공소기각의 판결을 선고한 제1심판결을 유지하였다.

2. However, in light of the actual condition survey report prepared by the judicial police assistant, as well as the photograph attached to the investigation report prepared by the judicial police officer (the investigation record 8 to 10) (the investigation record 30 to 32) and the signal attached to the investigation report prepared by the judicial police officer, it is recognized that the pedestrian signal, etc., opposite to each other on both ends of the above crosswalk, are installed for the traffic of the crosswalk, and the signal of the pedestrian for the traffic of the crosswalk is installed separately for the traffic of the crosswalk, and that the signal of the bell type, etc., such as the signal of the bell type, are installed separately for the direction of the traffic on the side of the signal such as the signal, etc., so if the signal of this case, etc. installed on the crosswalk, such as the time of the original inquiry, is considered to be a signal apparatus of the same use as that of the vehicle and the horse, it is unfair to install a signal

In addition, according to the above drawings and photographs, it is recognized that there is a stop line at the point prior to the entry of the vehicle running along the rooftop in the intersection. This is deemed to have designated the location for vehicles and horses to stop in accordance with the signals, such as the instant signal, etc. installed on the crosswalk prior to the entry into the intersection. In light of these factors, it is reasonable to view the instant signal, etc. as a signal signal that instructs the method of proceeding to vehicles and horses passing through the intersection (see Supreme Court Decision 91Do230 delivered on Jan. 21, 192).

Therefore, pursuant to Articles 4, 5, and 5, attached Table 2, and 3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, when the signal of this case is green signal, it can only turn straight and right-hand (in this case, since the signal of this case cannot turn to the left even when the red signal of this case is a red signal, there is a realistic problem that there is no way to turn to the left-hand turn from the right-hand side in the side of the large exhibition, and there is criticism that the central line of the pentcheon Road from the side of the large exhibition does not fit for the left-hand turn-hand turn-hand turn-hand turn-hand at the intersection. However, it can be deemed that the central line stopped within the intersection is cut for the left-hand turn-hand turn-hand turn-hand turn-hand turn in the main four complex. Thus, it cannot be concluded that the left-hand turn-hand turn is permitted within the intersection, and it is caused by the error of traffic signal system to the left-hand turn-hand turn-hand turn-hand turn-out signal of this case.

Although the court below should have judged the above contents and specific circumstances of the signal system more closely, it was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the signal system under the Road Traffic Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the ground for appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. Therefore, we reverse and remand the judgment of the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)