In case where the concession of a preceding vehicle exists at a place where overtaking is prohibited, whether it is possible to overtake the preceding vehicle (negative)

Article 20-2 of the Road Traffic Act provides that "the driver of any motor vehicle shall not overtake another motor vehicle in any of the following places," and prohibits the overtaking at a certain place. Therefore, the overtaking shall not be permitted even if the motor vehicle ahead has yielded the course by the motor vehicle ahead of it pursuant to Article 18 of the Road Traffic Act at a place falling under any of the subparagraphs of the same Article.

Articles 18 and 20-2 of the Road Traffic Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daejeon District Court Decision 2004No2169 Delivered on November 5, 2004

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

1. Summary of the facts charged

On March 29, 2004, at around 12:25, the Defendant driven the said car, driving the said car, and proceeding on the street above the top of the top of the floor at the right side of the west-gun, Taenam-gun, Taenam-gun, to the right side of North Korea. The location was the right side of the front side of the west-gun, which is a sloped from the west-gun, the right side of the front side of the west-gun, and thus, the overtaking was conducted by overtaking the previous truck beyond the central line, notwithstanding the fact that the place constitutes a place of prohibition of overtaking.

2. The judgment of the court below

In light of the admitted evidence, the court below acknowledged that the place of overtaking by the defendant is a bend and bend and near the floor of the road, so this location constitutes a place where overtaking is prohibited under Article 20-2 of the Road Traffic Act. However, the defendant consistently asserts that the previous vehicle from the time of the discovery of the instant vehicle to the original instance court, to the time of overtaking, was transmitted to the defendant, and thus, it is impossible to overtake even if the previous vehicle is conceded, or in Article 18 of the Road Traffic Act, all vehicles except emergency motor vehicles, except for the case where traffic classification is installed, should yield the way to the defendant by getting out of the way to the right edge of the road (Article 14 of the Road Traffic Act), and even if it is deemed that there is no suspicion that the defendant continued to yield the way to the right edge of the vehicle at a speed lower than that of the previous vehicle at the time when the latter vehicle was driven by the defendant at a speed lower than that of the road (Article 14 of the Road Traffic Act).

3. Judgment of the Supreme Court

However, we cannot accept the above decision of the court below for the following reasons.

Article 20-2 of the Road Traffic Act prohibits a driver of any motor vehicle from passing another motor vehicle at a certain place in any of the following places. As such, the Road Traffic Act prohibits a person from passing another motor vehicle at the place falling under any of the subparagraphs of the same Article, even if the motor vehicle ahead gives way to the other motor vehicle under Article 18 of the Road Traffic Act, the latter cannot overtake the other motor vehicle.

Nevertheless, the court below acknowledged the defendant's overtaking in the vicinity of the floor of the sloping road under Article 20-2 (3) of the Road Traffic Act, which is the place where the defendant is prohibited from overtaking, but found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged in this case on the ground that there is no evidence as to the fact that the vehicle in this case failed to yield the course to the defendant. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the prohibition of overtaking, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

4. Conclusion

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 Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)