Defendant

Prosecutor

Award for Creation

The Korea Legal Aid Corporation and Incheon District Office's Attorney Park Tae-ok

Incheon District Court Decision 2005Gohap3558 Decided February 17, 2006

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period converted by 50,000 won into one day.

1. Summary of the prosecutor's grounds for appeal;

Although the facts charged of violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents are not identical in relation to the fact of the offense for which the defendant paid the penalty upon receiving a notice, its contents, the form of the act, the legal interest in the damage, and the nature of the crime, the court below determined that the identity is recognized, and sentenced the defendant to be acquitted pursuant to Article 199(3) of the Road Traffic Act. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. Summary of the facts charged and the judgment of the court below

The summary of the facts charged of this case is that the defendant, as a bus driver, was driving a bus at about 30km (vehicle number omitted) on August 26, 2005, and was driving the city bus at about 22:05 on a speed of 30km, and was driving the city bus from the surface of the effic-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-gu's occupational negligence that entered the above intersection due to disregarding the stop signal at the intersection where the signal at 515-9 was installed, and caused the victim non-indicted 1's driver's Incheon (vehicle number omitted), who entered the above intersection in violation of new name on the right side of the proceeding, thereby causing injury to each of the above buses.

According to the statement, etc. of the receipt of penalty bound in the trial record, the court below found that the defendant violated the signal while driving the above city bus at the same date and place as the above facts charged, and was notified by the head of Incheon Gyeyang Police Station on September 17, 2005 to pay a penalty of KRW 70,000 under Articles 118 and 5 of the Road Traffic Act, and paid the penalty on the 26th of the same month, and found that the above offense was basically the same as the above facts charged, on the premise that the social facts based on the above facts charged are basically the same, the prosecution of this case is deemed to be public prosecution in violation of Article 119 (3) of the Road Traffic Act which recognizes the effect corresponding to the final judgment on payment of penalty by notification, and sentenced the defendant to be acquitted under Article 326 subparagraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure

B. Judgment of the court below

Article 119(3) of the Road Traffic Act provides that a person who has received a notice of penalty payment under Article 118 of the same Act shall not be punished again if the person has paid the penalty. In light of the contents and purport of the provisions on notification and payment of the penalty, etc., it shall be interpreted to recognize the validity corresponding to the final and conclusive judgment of the penalty payment. Meanwhile, if the offender received a notice from the chief of a police station for committing an offense, and pays the penalty within the payment period, the fact that the offender is not punished again is recognized as having the effect corresponding to the final and conclusive judgment of the penalty payment. It is reasonable to interpret that the act is limited to the offense itself and the offense recognized as identical to the offense in question, as stated in the reason for the penalty payment notice, and even if the act was done at the same time and at a place, it shall not affect the validity of the final and conclusive judgment as to the criminal act beyond the identity of the offense. In light of the contents and purport of the provisions on the notification and payment of the penalty, it shall not be deemed that the defendant's temporary violation of the Road Traffic Accident Act and its injury.

C. Sub-decision

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a judgment of acquittal on the premise that the indictment of this case is identical to the above facts charged and the above offenses, which violates Article 119(3) of the Road Traffic Act. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the validity of res judicata following the payment of penalty and the scope of identity of offenses, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the prosecutor's appeal pointing this out has merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the prosecutor's appeal is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is judged again as follows.

On August 26, 2005, the Defendant, as a bus driver, was driving a city bus at about 30 km (vehicle number omitted) at a speed of about 22:05 on August 26, 2005 and driving the city bus at an Arabic distance from the surface of the effic-dong long-distance, Incheon Gyeyang-dong 515-9, caused by negligence in the course of business entering the said intersection by disregarding the stop signal at the long-distance intersection where the signal, etc. located in the effic-dong, Gyeyang-dong, Incheon, was installed, and caused the victim Nonindicted 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, and 12, who was on the right-hand side of the course by taking the front part of the said bus, and caused the victim Nonindicted 2, 3,4,7,8,7,8,9,10,11, and 2, each of the two weeks of injuries each of the above buses.

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police suspect interrogation protocol against the accused;

1. Statement or entry in each police's statement on the occurrence of a traffic accident against April, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12;

1. The actual condition of traffic accidents;

1. Each written diagnosis on Nonindicted 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 3(1), proviso to Article 3(2)1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 268 of the Criminal Act

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (Punishments on the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents against 9 Victims Who are the largest of crimes)

1. Selection of punishment;

Selection of Fines

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Ground (Presiding Judge)