[1] Whether the act of making a left turn or a U-turn at the time of red lights at the intersection where a signal apparatus without a non-protection line sign or U-turn permissible sign is installed constitutes a violation of signal (affirmative)

[2] Whether the act of left or left turn at the red light is justified merely because a surface sign indicating the right or left turn is installed (negative)

[1] If the signal apparatus emitted only from a green, yellow and red yellow light at the intersection is installed, and no other sign is permitted to make a non-protective circuit sign or a U-turn, in principle, it is not allowed for vehicles and horses to make a left turn or a left turn turn turn. Therefore, if the signal apparatus is not stopped at the red light at the above intersection, it shall be deemed to fall under the case of operating a vehicle in violation of the signal apparatus signals under Article 5 of the Road Traffic Act, unless there are special circumstances.

[2] Even if a road surface sign was installed at a place where the left turn is intended to be made in accordance with the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act [Attachment Table 1] on the first line of the ongoing direction, it is merely a direction for a vehicle to proceed in accordance with its name when the left turn signal enters or a non-protective circuit sign is marked, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the act of a vehicle or horse to turn to the left or to turn to the left at the red light alone is justified.

[1] Articles 4 and 5 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 5 [Attachment 2 and 3] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 651 of July 1, 1995) / [2] Articles 4 and 5 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 5 [Attachment 2 and 3] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 651 of July 1, 1995)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 91Do2330 delivered on January 21, 1992 (Gong1992, 957)

A

Prosecutor

Busan District Court Decision 95No2321 delivered on November 24, 1995

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

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the defendant was driving the above vehicle on February 2, 1995 because the above driver of the vehicle was not allowed to enter the above vehicle at the front line of Busan Jin-gu, with a view to an intersection traffic signal at the direction of the driver of the above-mentioned vehicle or the driver of the above-mentioned vehicle at the front line of Busan Jin-gu, and the driver of the above vehicle was not allowed to turn to the left or to turn to the left at the end of the stop line due to the fact that the above vehicle was not allowed to turn to the front line of the traffic signal at the above-mentioned intersection, and the driver of the above vehicle was not allowed to turn to the front line traffic signal at the front line or the driver of the above-mentioned vehicle at the front line, and the driver of the above vehicle was not allowed to turn to turn to the front line traffic signal at the front line of the above-mentioned road and the driver of the above stop line at the direction of the traffic signal at the front line.

2. However, according to the provisions of Article 5 of the Road Traffic Act, vehicles and horses passing along roads shall observe signals or directions displayed by signal apparatus or safety signs, police officers controlling traffic, etc. When it is anticipated that vehicles and horses may obstruct the normal passage of pedestrians, other vehicles and horses, they shall not cross, walk, or backward the road, and when they may obstruct the normal passage of other vehicles and horses, they shall not cross, turn, or backward the road, and under the provisions of Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Traffic Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 651 of Jul. 1, 1995), in the case of vehicles and horses, the signals displayed by the signal apparatus in green lights can turn right or right-hand turn so that they may not obstruct other traffic, but if they are not obstructed by the intersection or right-hand turn, they shall not pass immediately after the intersection or left-hand turn turn, they shall stop or stop the signal or turn-hand turn at the intersection, and if they shall not pass immediately after the intersection or turn-out.

According to the record, if the signal apparatus is installed at the right-hand turn at the front side of the direction of the defendant's proceeding and the signal apparatus such as a crossing light is installed, and there is no non-protection left-hand turn-hand turn-hand turn-free light available at the time of green light, if the signal apparatus at the front side of the defendant's proceeding is red light, the vehicle driving in that direction has a green light from the direction of the military unit to the Friju station, and the vehicle driving in that direction has passed through the front of the stop line at the intersection where the defendant is waiting, and no signal or sign allowing a Uriton is installed on any light. Thus, if the defendant is not stopped at the right-hand turn or left-hand turn at the intersection where the signal apparatus is installed, it shall be deemed to fall under the case of operating in violation of the signal apparatus under the provisions of Article 5 of the same Act, unless there are special circumstances.

The court below acknowledged the fact that a U.S. driver, who is in fact a U.S. driver, had a U.S. driver’s right- or left-hand turn to the left-hand turn on the signal apparatus at the front direction of the defendant's proceeding, even if the U.S. driver allowed the U.S. driver's license for a U.S. driver's right- or left-hand turn on the first line in the direction of the defendant's proceeding, because the U.S. driver's right- or left-hand turn-hand turn-hand turn is not likely to interfere with the normal passage of vehicles and horses proceeding from the U.S. military light if the driver's right- or left-hand turn-hand turn is installed in a place where the driver's right-hand turn can not be seen as being interfered with the traffic, and even if the record is examined, there is no evidence to find that the above practice was formed, and even if the driver's right-hand turn-hand turn-hand turn-out can not be seen as being justified or justified.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in finding facts without evidence since the construction of the signal system under the Road Traffic Act or the violation of the rules of evidence cannot be found, and such illegality has influenced the judgment of this case. Therefore, the argument pointing this out is justified.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yang Gyeong-sung (Presiding Justice)