2010No3820 Violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning Traffic Accidents Settlement

GenderA (71 years old, South)

Defendant

For gambry

Busan District Court Decision 2010Gohap5252 Decided October 27, 2010

February 11, 2011

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of legal principles

The Defendant amended the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act that the accident at the left-hand turn does not constitute a traffic accident in violation of signal, and thus, the instant traffic accident cannot also be deemed a traffic accident in violation of signal. Thus, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant traffic accident by regarding it as a traffic accident in violation of signal, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the scope of application of the Enforcement Rule of the

B. The assertion of unfair sentencing

The Defendant asserts that the sentence of the lower court (a fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the misapprehension of legal principles

In addition, Article 3 of the Addenda of the amended Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 156, Aug. 24, 2010) (amended by Presidential Decree No. 156, Jun. 24, 2010) provides that "the previous provision shall apply to the traffic accident in this case, which occurred on June 25, 2010, to which the former Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 156, Aug. 24, 2010) applies with respect to the penalty as to the result of non-protective failure due to the change of the purpose of green light among vehicle signals, etc. prior to the enforcement of the Rules. Therefore, the defendant's assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles is without merit.

B. The assertion of unfair sentencing

In light of all the circumstances, such as comprehensive insurance purchased by the borrower of the vehicle driving by the defendant and vicarious driving insurance of the defendant, the damage of the victim seems to have been partly recovered, and the fault on the part of the victim appears to exist in the occurrence of the accident after the accident. After the accident in this case, the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act was amended and the accident in the section before the Non-Protection Round cannot be seen as a traffic accident in green light. However, the accident in this case is deemed to be an accident in light of the traffic accident in this case. Meanwhile, the injury of the victim of the traffic accident in this case (the injury on the part of the second week medical treatment) seems not to be less easily agreed, the amount of the fine has been reduced in consideration of the circumstances asserted by the defendant in the court below, the situation and contents leading to the crime in this case, the situation and contents leading to the crime in this case, the age and character of the defendant, personality and behavior, family relationship, environment, occupation, etc., the decision of the court below is without merit.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal of this case 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.

The presiding judge, judge and senior judge;

Judge Lee Dong-dong

Judges Shin Jae-won