Whether it falls under the proviso of Article 3 (2) 2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (affirmative) in cases where the operation of another vehicle is made in violation of the trust of the operator of the other vehicle on the road along which the central line

The center line of a road along which a lane is installed is a line connected to the other opposite direction, and thus, the driver operating the lane is a driver who is a driver operating the lane and, barring special circumstances, trust that the vehicle in the opposite line does not enter beyond the center line. Thus, if an accident occurred by intentionally passing beyond the center line without any inevitable reason and operating it in violation of the trust and trust of the operator of the vehicle in the deprived line, it constitutes an exception to special punishment under Article 3(2) proviso 2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning Traffic Accident Settlement

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Han Han-soo

Msan District Court Decision 87No1024 delivered on May 20, 198

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Mapo District Court Panel Division.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the accident of this case was not only caused by the defendant's collision in light of the fact that the accident of this case occurred in the central line of this case, but also the accident of this case was not directly caused by the defendant's collision in the middle line of the accident of this case, since the accident of this case was caused by the victim's traffic accident of this case, which was operated in the main direction of the road of this case by driving the bus of this case and driving the bus of this racker with his own racker, and changed its direction in advance for convenience in returning back to the right-hand racker, and the body of the racker's vehicle of this case was entered into the main course of the accident of this case, but also the accident of this case was not caused by the collision in the central line of the accident of this case, since the part on the left-hand side of the racker's own road of this case was not caused by the collision in the central line of the accident of this case.

2. However, the center line of a road along which a lane is installed is not located on the boundary line connected by the vehicle line that is operated in the opposite direction, and thus, the driver of the vehicle in the opposite line is on the trust that the vehicle in the opposite line will not enter beyond the boundary line, barring special circumstances. Thus, if the vehicle in the opposite line caused an accident by intentionally entering the median line beyond the center line, even though there is no unavoidable reason, it constitutes an exception to special punishment under Article 3(2) proviso of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

In this case, considering the evidence admitted by the court below (in particular, the statement in the actual situation survey report on the preparation of duty handling of judicial police officers), it is recognized that the police station operated by the defendant has a collision between the victim's vehicle that was operated on the vehicle line and the victim's vehicle that was operated on the vehicle line bypassing the center line in order to change the opposite direction after completely entering the vehicle line beyond the center line. In light of the above circumstances of the accident, the act of entering the vehicle in the opposite line beyond the center line to completely enter the opposite line and change the direction after changing the direction, it cannot be deemed that the act of entering the vehicle in the opposite line is contrary to the victim's trust operated on the opposite line, and it does not constitute the cause of the accident of this case. The defendant is not driving in the opposite line, but is operated in the original opposite line, and the location of the accident is also the vehicle in the original vehicle operated by the defendant.

3. Ultimately, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the law as to the provision of Article 3 (2) 2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the judgment of the court below is reversed and remanded, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice) Lee Jong-won (Presiding Justice)