The meaning of "when the center line of a road is invaded" under the proviso of Article 3 (2) 2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

For the purpose of the proviso of Article 3(2)2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, the term “if the traffic accident occurred due to the operation of the median line of the road along which the lane is installed in contravention of the provisions of Article 11-2(2) of the Road Traffic Act” means the case where the traffic accident is caused by the operation of the median line. The location of the traffic accident does not include all the cases where the location of the traffic accident is the point beyond the median line. Thus, it does not constitute a case where the traffic accident, while driving along the right line of the road along the right line, plucks down the central line on the wind that

Article 3(2)2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 11(2) of the Road Traffic Act

Supreme Court Decision 84Do193 delivered on March 27, 1984

Defendant

Prosecutor

Jeonju District Court Decision 84No338 delivered on July 25, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, which is an exception to punishment that cannot be instituted against the express intent of the victim, when the traffic accident occurred in violation of the provisions of Article 11-2 and 11-2 of the Road Traffic Act in the former part of Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, refers to the case where the traffic accident occurred due to the operation of the center line by breaking the center line, and the location of the traffic accident does not include all cases where the center line is located beyond the center line (see Supreme Court Decision 84Do193 delivered on March 27, 1984). According to the judgment below established by the court below in this case, the defendant is justified in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the above special cases concerning the treatment of traffic accidents since the defendant's failure of the name, who is crossing the left-hand side of the center line of the point of the accident in this case, discovered the name and caused the injury of the victim by shocking the center line.

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

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)