The meaning of the case where the center line of the road on which the lane of Article 3(2) proviso of the former Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (amended by Act No. 3744 of Aug. 4, 1984) is installed is invaded.

Article 3(2) proviso of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (amended by Act No. 3744, Aug. 4, 1984) refers to the case where the center line is invaded by the center line intentionally, and the case where the center line was invaded by the center line in order to avoid an obstacle does not include the case where the center line was invaded by the center line in order to avoid an obstacle, or the place of the accident is the point beyond the center line.

Article 3 (2) proviso 2 of the former Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (amended by Act No. 3744 of Aug. 4, 1984)

Supreme Court Decision 84Do2651 Decided March 12, 1985 85Do1407 Decided September 10, 1985

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 85No3464 delivered on November 14, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

Examining the evidence cited by the judgment of the court of first instance in comparison with the records, the evidence pointing out by the court below shall be rejected on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the vehicle of the defendant was in violation of the central line of the road at the time of the accident and caused the accident, and there is no other evidence to support that the vehicle of the defendant was in violation of the rules of evidence against the theory of lawsuit.

In addition, when a person intentionally intrudes on the center line of a road where a lane under the former part of Article 3(2)2 of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (amended by Act No. 3744, Aug. 4, 1984) is installed, the term "in cases where a person intentionally intrudes on the center line to drive a vehicle," and it does not include cases where a person has been forced to navigate an obstacle, or where the place of accident is beyond the center line, but does not include cases where a person is the point beyond the center line (see Supreme Court Decision 84Do2651, Mar. 12,

In theory, if the accident of this case, like sub-committees, is changed from the second line to the first line while the defendant is driving along the first line, and if the bus in the right bus stops in order to avoid this change, it cannot be deemed as a case where the central line was invaded by the central line as defined in the former part of Article 3(2)2 of the above Act. Thus, even in any case, there is no error of law in the conclusion of the court below that dismissed the prosecution.

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

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice)