[1] In a case where a vehicle under the Road Traffic Act was changed to a yellow light before entering the intersection, whether the vehicle should stop immediately before the stop line or the intersection (affirmative)

[2] In a case where the Defendant, a driver of a motor vehicle, was indicted of violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and the Road Traffic Act by entering the intersection when the signal, etc. at the distance crossing without a stop line and crosswalk was changed to a yellow light, causing injury to Party A by negligence, and at the same time destroying Party A’s vehicle, he was indicted of violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and the Road Traffic Act by damaging Party A’s vehicle, the case holding that even if the stop line and crosswalk are not installed at the intersection, the Defendant violated the signal if the report did not immediately stop the yellow light

[1] Article 6(2) [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act provides that “A vehicle or horse shall stop immediately before a stop line exists or a crosswalk exists, and shall stop immediately when a vehicle or horse enters the intersection even if part of the vehicle or horse entered the intersection.” According to the above provision, if a vehicle has been changed to a yellow light before entering the intersection, the vehicle shall stop immediately before the stop line or the intersection, and may not choose whether a vehicle driver stops or proceeds.

[2] In a case where the Defendant, a driver of a motor vehicle, was indicted on charges of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and the Road Traffic Act by causing injury to the towing vehicle (“A”) who entered the intersection while the signal signal, etc. at the intersection without a stop line and the crosswalk was changed to a yellow light, and at the same time damaged the towing vehicle (“A”), the case held that the lower court acquitted the Defendant of all of the facts charged on the ground that the Defendant did not violate the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and the Road Traffic Act on the ground that: (a) the Defendant, who was a driver of a motor vehicle, had entered the intersection by straighting the intersection; (b) the Defendant was aware that the signal was changed to a yellow light at the front of the intersection; and (c) the Defendant entered the intersection without finishing the road maintenance work at the time of the intersection; and (d) the Defendant did not install the stop line and the crosswalk on the ground that the Defendant did not immediately stop the signal by the road without having been installed.

[1] Article 4 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 6 (2) [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act / [2] Article 3 (1) and (2) 1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 268 of the Criminal Act, Articles 4 and 151 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 6 (2) [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2006Do3657 Decided July 27, 2006

Defendant

Prosecutor

Suwon District Court Decision 2018No1935 decided August 22, 2018

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 6(2) [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act provides that “A vehicle or horse shall stop immediately before or after a stop line exists or crosswalks exist, and shall stop immediately when a vehicle or horse enters the intersection even if part of the vehicle or horse entered the intersection.” According to the above provision, if a vehicle has been changed to a yellow light before entering the intersection, the vehicle shall stop immediately before the stop line or the intersection, and it shall not choose whether the driver will stop or proceed (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do3657, Jul. 27, 2006, etc.).

2. The lower court affirmed the first instance judgment that acquitted all of the charges of this case on the ground that the “sulfur light” as prescribed in Article 6(2) [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act cannot be interpreted to mean that if there is no stoppage line or crosswalk, it should be stopped immediately from the intersection. The lower court explicitly indicated that “motor vehicles and horses shall stop immediately before the intersection” in the red light signals, unlike the provision on yellow light, should stop immediately after the intersection, and that, unlike the provision on yellow light, the yellow light should proceed promptly when a vehicle and horses already enter the intersection, it does not completely prohibit passage through the intersection in the new line of yellow light.

According to the evidence duly admitted, at around 09:50 on December 11, 2016, the Defendant entered the intersection without a stop, even though he was aware that the signal was changed to the above intersection located on the front side of the Defendant’s proceeding, the Defendant entered the intersection without a stop even though he was aware that the signal was changed to the above intersection located on the front side of the road at the time, and it did not complete road maintenance work at the time, and it was not installed with the stop line and the crosswalk.

Examining these circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that even if the Defendant did not install a stop line and crosswalk prior to entering the intersection, the Defendant violated the signal if he did not stop the yellow light immediately before the intersection. Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the Defendant did not violate the signal solely on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the yellow light under Article 6(2) [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation contained in the grounds of appeal on this point

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 Jo Hee-de (Presiding Justice)