[1] Whether the left or U-turns of motor vehicles and horses are allowed at an intersection where signal apparatus such as green, yellow, red color, etc. is installed and no non-protection circuit sign or U-turn mark is marked (negative)

[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which held that if signal apparatus such as crossing-type ginseng is installed and the non-protection circuit sign is not marked, if the green light is carried out in the intersection, not only the opposite direction vehicle but also the rear side vehicle in the same direction of the proceeding shall be liable for the violation of signal

[1] In full view of the provisions of Articles 4, 5, and 16 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, and Article 5 (2) [Attachment 3] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs No. 208 of October 18, 2003), vehicles and horses shall not be permitted to turn to the left or U-turns of vehicles and horses, in case where only the signal with green, yellow, and red blue light is installed at the intersection and there is no other indication that permits non-protection circuit display or U-turns.

[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which held that in case where signal apparatus such as crossing-type ginseng is installed and the non-protection circuit sign is not marked, if the green light is carried out in the intersection, not only the opposite direction vehicle but also the rear side vehicle in the same direction of the proceeding shall be liable for the violation of signal.

[1] Articles 4, 5, and 16 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, Article 5 (2) [Attachment 3] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs No. 208 of October 18, 2003) / [2] Articles 5 and 113 subparagraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 95Do3093 decided May 31, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2084)

Defendant

Defendant

Daejeon District Court Decision 2004No1149 Delivered on August 20, 2004

The appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the actual survey report prepared by the judicial police assistant (in 5 pages of investigation records) and the photo (in 7 through 14 pages of investigation records), it is reasonable to view the signal installed at the intersection of this case as a signal apparatus leading to the passage of the crossing at both sides of the intersection of this case, such as the signal, etc., with a signal signal such as a cross-breadth, and the signal apparatus such as a cross-breadth is installed on the side of the signal, and the opposite part also has a signal such as a cross-breadth, and it can be recognized that the signal installed at the intersection of the intersection of this case at the intersection of the road leading to the flow of the intersection of the intersection of this case to the intersection of the road leading to the flow of the intersection of this case (see Supreme Court Decisions 91Do230, Jan. 21, 1992; 9Do23319, Aug. 13, 194).

The allegation in the grounds of appeal that the signal apparatus installed at the instant intersection is a signal apparatus that instructs the method of passage of the crosswalks of vehicles and horses in order to protect pedestrians passing along the crosswalks, and cannot be viewed as a signal apparatus that instructs the method of passage through the intersections is rejected.

2. In full view of the provisions of Articles 5, 16(1), and 4 of the Road Traffic Act, and Article 5(2) [Attachment 3] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs No. 208 of Oct. 18, 2003), in a case where only the green, yellow, and red yellow lights are installed at the intersection, and there is no other indication that permits non-protection circuit display or U-turn, the left turn or U-turn of vehicles and horses shall not be permitted in principle (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do3093, May 31, 1996).

The court below reversed the judgment of the court below or dismissed the judgment of the court of first instance on the ground that it did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the defendant's charges against the defendant for violating the traffic signals under Article 5 of the Road Traffic Act, since the green light is installed at the front side of the direction that the defendant was running, and there is no green light light sign which can turn to the left, and since the green light is not allowed to go to the left, the defendant's act of operating in violation of his duty to follow the signal signals under Article 5 of the Road Traffic Act, unless there are special circumstances. The defendant's act of driving in violation of the traffic signals under Article 5 of the Road Traffic Act shall not only interfere with the progress of the opposite direction when he turns green light, but also there is a need to protect the credibility of the vehicle behind the same direction that the vehicle in the front side of the same direction is trusted to proceed with green light, and the legislative purport of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, etc.

The Supreme Court Decision 96Do690 Decided May 28, 1999 cited in the ground of appeal by the defendant is not appropriate to invoke the case as to whether the violation of the signal occurs in a case where a vehicle that proceeds from the same direction at the time of green light at the place where a non-protection line sign is marked.

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

Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)