The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The summary of the facts charged was around 17:10 on September 17, 2012, the Defendant: (a) driven a CKankn Cor; and (b) proceeded with a road front of the entrance of the Emate 1st parking lot in Jeju, from the later side of the F cafeteria to the Eart parking lot.

Since the central line and the safety zone are installed and the traffic congestion is a place, it is necessary for parking personnel to enter the parking lot safely by making the front door and the left and the left well according to the direction of the parking personnel.

Nevertheless, despite the direction of prohibition of entry by parking personnel, the defendant shocked the victim G (Woo 20 years of age) who is parked and managed in a place beyond the central line as a safe place by negligence and negligence.

Ultimately, the defendant's occupational negligence caused the victim to suffer a slock in need of approximately three weeks of medical treatment.

2. Determination

A. The phrase “when a traffic accident is committed in violation of the provisions of Article 13(2) of the Road Traffic Act” in the former part of the proviso of Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents refers to the case where a traffic accident is caused by the act of driving a vehicle by breaking the center line of the road. In other words, as long as the act of intrusion by the center line directly causes a traffic accident, as long as the act of intrusion by the center line directly causes a traffic accident, it is not necessary to have an opposite lane beyond the center line. However, if the act of intrusion by the center line is not the direct cause of the occurrence of a traffic accident, it does not include both the traffic accident while the center line is in operation by the center line.

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Do1319, Dec. 10, 1991).

According to the records of this case, Eart parking lots should enter the Hart (IOm) side, and the "F cafeteria" side should go beyond the central line, controlling entry. At the time of this case, the victim was carrying out parking guidance at the entrance of the above parking lot, but the defendant was above.