The meaning of when the center line of a road on which a lane under the former part of Article 3(2)2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents is installed is invaded.

Article 3 (2) 2 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents provides that "When the center where the traffic accident occurred, in violation of the provisions of Article 13 (2) of the Road Traffic Act, has intruded the center line of the road on which the lane is installed" means not all cases beyond the center line, but the case where the traffic accident occurred continues to occur, or where the traffic accident causes an accident by breaking the center line without any inevitable reason.

Article 3 (2) 2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents

Supreme Court Decision 84Do193 delivered on March 27, 1984; 84Do2134 delivered on November 27, 1984

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daegu District Court Decision 85No691 delivered on May 24, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

In light of the legislative intent of Article 3(2)2 of the Road Traffic Act, when a vehicle that caused a traffic accident is insured under Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, which is an exception to punishment that is not possible to institute a public prosecution, it is reasonable to say that the occurrence point of the traffic accident is not all the cases beyond the center line, but the case where the vehicle continues to operate the center line or causes an accident by breaking the center line without any inevitable reason. According to the facts established by the court below, although the occurrence point of the traffic accident in this case is beyond the center line, the defendant is driving the Nebage vehicle with a speed of 20 km meters at the speed of time, while driving the Nbage vehicle with a speed of 20 km, it is hard to agree with the judgment of the court below that the vehicle did not constitute an independent traffic accident under the proviso of Article 3(2)2 of the Road Traffic Act, since it was found that it was a traffic accident under the former part of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

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

Justices Park Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)