In a case where the Defendant was prosecuted for violating the Road Traffic Act bypassing the signal at the intersection where vehicle auxiliary signal, etc. is installed, the case holding that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine in holding that, even though the vehicle auxiliary signal, etc. cannot be deemed to be prohibited solely on the ground that the vehicle auxiliary signal, etc. was in its original form, if the vehicle auxiliary signal, etc. is a red light, the vehicle auxiliary signal, etc. should be deemed to be immediately stopped

Articles 5(1) and 156 subparag. 1 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 6(2) [Attachment 2] and 7(1) [Attachment 3] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Law Firm Jungwon, Attorney Kang Young-gu

Daegu District Court Decision 2016No2419 decided January 26, 2017

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On July 28, 2015, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case: (a) around July 17:3, 2015, the Defendant: (b) bypassing the inner intersection of the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Busan from the alternate slope to the bank of the same police station; (c) the intersection is an intersection where the vehicle auxiliary signal, etc. (hereinafter “vehicle auxiliary signal, etc.”) is installed; and (d) the Defendant, as a driver, should drive the vehicle in accordance with the new code, should drive the vehicle, but the Defendant

In regard to this, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the charges of this case on the ground that: (a) the vehicle signal signal, etc. installed at the intersection at the time when the Defendant was bypass was a red light, but rather than the fire extinguishing light; (b) if the intersection and the crosswalk are installed adjacent to the intersection as in this case, the vehicle signal apparatus was installed adjacent to the intersection, and there is no legal ground to deem that the vehicle signal apparatus was a red light; and (c) even if the pedestrian signal, etc. was green, it cannot be deemed that the vehicle signal, etc. at the intersection at the time when the Defendant was bypass, was a green light, etc., the vehicle signal installed at the intersection at the time when it was bypass.

2. However, it is difficult to accept the above determination by the court below in light of the following points.

The lower court determined that the vehicle aid signal, etc. installed on the pedestrian side of the crosswalk in order to prevent the right-way passage, should have used the fireproof light. However, since the fireproof light was newly constructed on August 24, 2010 by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Public Administration and Security No. 156 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Road Act, among the vehicle signal, there was no "fire extinguishing signal" among the vehicle signal prior to its relocation, it seems that the vehicle aid signal, etc. in the form of the bell such as the vehicle aid signal, etc. in this case is installed and yet not yet replaced, and the vehicle aid, etc. installed on the pedestrian side of the crosswalk in order to assist the traffic signal, etc. before its enforcement (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Public Administration and Security No. 156 of Aug. 24, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply), the lower court did not err in its determination by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the vehicle aid signal, etc. in its original form, and thus, it cannot be seen that the vehicle aid signal in this case was prohibited.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)