[1] The meaning of "the case of being subscribed to insurance or mutual aid" subject to special cases such as criminal punishment under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents

[2] In a case where the Defendant was indicted for violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents by negligent negligence in driving a bicycle and driving a bicycle, resulting in injury to the victim Gap and then was charged for violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, but the Defendant did not purchase an insurance policy but purchased a comprehensive insurance policy with the content that the Defendant separately compensates within KRW 100 million, the case holding that the lower court dismissed the public prosecution on the ground that the amount of damages such as agreement was paid based on the above insurance policy, the case holding that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to

[1] In addition to the purpose and purpose of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (hereinafter “Special Cases”), the definition of “insurance or mutual aid” under Article 4(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, as well as the definition of “insurance or mutual aid” under Article 4(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (hereinafter “Special Cases Act”), the term “insurance or mutual aid association under the Insurance Business Act, or a mutual aid association or mutual aid business operator under the Passenger Transport Service Act or the Trucking Transport Business Act, regardless of whether or not the insured or mutual aid association members and the victim have agreed on the compensation for damages, the full amount of ordinary expenses for the medical expenses of the victim in lieu of the insured or mutual aid association members, and the standard amount of payment stipulated in the insurance or mutual aid terms and conditions shall be paid first as prescribed by Presidential Decree for other damages, and ultimately, the term “insurance or mutual aid agreement” under Article 4(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Traffic Accidents provided that “the driver of the vehicle is entitled to prompt compensation for the victim.

[2] In a case where the Defendant was charged with a violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (hereinafter “Special Act”) by negligent negligence in driving a bicycle and driving a bicycle, causing injury to the victim, and the bicycle was not covered by the insurance, but the Defendant separately purchased a comprehensive insurance policy stating that “the amount of statutory liability for physical disability and damage to another person’s property due to an accident in daily life, within the limit of KRW 100 million,” the case held that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on “insurance” under Article 4(1) and (2) of the Special Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (hereinafter “Special Act”), since the Defendant’s insurance policy is merely KRW 100 million, thereby incurring damage exceeding KRW 100,000,00,000,000,000,000,000 won, the Defendant’s insurance policy cannot be deemed to constitute the insurance policy within the meaning of Article 4(1) and (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Compensation for Damages caused by Traffic Accidents.

[1] Articles 1 and 4(1) and (2) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (Amended by Act No. 10575, Apr. 12, 201) / [2] Article 268 of the Criminal Act; Articles 3(1), 4(1) and (2) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (Amended by Act No. 10575, Apr. 12, 201); Article 327 subparag. 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2008Do2092 Decided June 12, 2008 (Gong2008Ha, 1012)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2011No322 decided April 28, 2011

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The purpose of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (hereinafter “Special Cases Act”) is to prevent a public prosecution against a driver who has caused a traffic accident under Article 268 of the Criminal Act, the crime of causing bodily injury by occupational negligence, gross negligence, and the crime under Article 151 of the Road Traffic Act, and a driver who has caused a traffic accident under Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents is to ensure prompt and reliable compensation of damage caused by a traffic accident by introducing an insurance system related to the operation of a vehicle and by inducing the driver to subscribe to it, and to improve the convenience of people’s lives by preventing the mass birth of a previous offender (see Article 1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and Constitutional Court en banc Decision 10Hun-Ma16, Jan. 16, 1997; en banc Decision 101Hun-Ma16, Oct. 16, 1997).

However, as to the definition of "insurance or mutual aid" under Article 4 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Disasters, in addition to the aforementioned purpose and the definition of "insurance or mutual aid" under Article 4 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Disasters, the full amount of ordinary expenses for the medical expenses of the victim in lieu of the insured or the members of mutual aid association regardless of whether or not the agreement on the compensation for damages has been reached between the insured and the victim or between the members of mutual aid association or between the members of mutual aid association under the Insurance Business Act and the members of mutual aid association under the insurance policy or the terms and conditions of mutual aid approved, shall be paid first as prescribed by Presidential Decree, and ultimately, the term "insurance or mutual aid" subject to special cases such as criminal punishment under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Disasters is stipulated as "insurance or mutual aid where the "car which caused traffic accident" is subscribed to the above insurance, etc. or the "driver of the vehicle" is provided for the insurance related to the operation of the vehicle, etc.

2. A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, the court below reversed the judgment of the court of first instance and dismissed the public prosecution of this case on the grounds that it constitutes an insurance policy under Article 4(1) and (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the traffic accident of this case where the defendant was negligent in driving a bicycle while taking part in his occupational negligence and suffered multi-scambing, etc. from the victim. However, although modern Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. and the defendant separately purchased a non-insurance policy with the purport that "the amount of statutory liability under the law that the defendant bears for the physical disability and property of another person due to an accident in his daily life within the limit of KRW 100 million" (hereinafter "the insurance of this case"), and that the victim was compensated by the insurance company under the above insurance after the traffic accident of this case.

B. However, the above determination by the court below is difficult to accept in light of the legal principles as seen earlier.

Even based on the facts found by the lower court, the instant insurance purchased by the Defendant is merely 100 million won, and where the instant insurance that the Defendant subscribed only exceeds KRW 100 million, the victim cannot be compensated by the insurance purchased by the Defendant. Therefore, such type of insurance does not constitute an insurance within the meaning of Article 4(1) and (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Compensation for Whole Compensation for Damages Caused by the Insured’s Traffic Accidents.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that Article 4(1) and (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Damages was applicable solely on the ground that the Defendant and the victim paid the amount of damages, such as agreed money, without examining the detailed details of the compensation for damages guaranteed by the instant insurance that the Defendant separately purchased. This is erroneous by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “insurance” under Article 4(1) and (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Damages.

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 Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)