Defendant

Defendant

Song-jin

Seoul Western District Court Decision 2010Gohap2469 Decided March 15, 2011

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles or factual errors);

(a) At a point of 50-meter prior to arrival of an independent letter in a resignation tunnel, straight lines and bypass signs are installed, and the two straight lines between two straight lines and two straight lines prior to the right ofpass.

B. The Defendant tried to go straight ahead of the resignation distance in the resignation tunnel and go straight ahead of the independent door, and tried to go to the gold tunnel. However, since the Defendant reached the shooting distance in front of the independent door, only two lanes are showing the right-hand turn on the side of the right-hand side, and it did not indicate the right-hand turn, and turn out to the right-hand side while driving ahead of the gold tunnel in order to go to the right-hand side in the way of turning out again by the right-hand.

C. The point at which the defendant passed is not an intersection, but an independent door is an intersection. Thus, even though there was only an indication of the right-hand turn on the front side of the private road in front of the independent letter, insofar as the defendant was bypass while driving at the right-hand side of the road, the defendant does not violate the traffic method through the intersection as provided by the Road Traffic Act.

D. Therefore, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant by applying Articles 156 and 25(1) of the Road Traffic Act on the ground of the violation of the method of passage through the intersection is erroneous in the misapprehension of a mistake or misapprehension of a legal principle.

2. Summary of criminal facts of the request for summary judgment of this case

On August 6, 2010, at around 18:36, the Defendant moved to the right-hand right-hand right-hand right-hand right-hand right-hand right-hand right-hand right-hand right-hand right-hand right-hand right-hand right-hand right-hand right-hand right-hand right-hand right-hand right-hand right-hand right-hand right-hand right-hand right-hand right-hand right

3. The judgment of the court below

In full view of the evidence in its holding, the lower court convicted the Defendant by applying Articles 156 and 25(1) of the Road Traffic Act.

4. Judgment of the court below

A. Article 156 Subparag. 1 of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 10382, Jul. 23, 2010; hereinafter “former Road Traffic Act”) provides that “the drivers of vehicles and horses who violate the provisions of Article 25 are punished.” Article 25(1) of the same Act provides that “All drivers of vehicles and horses shall, when intending to make a right-hand side at the intersection, make a right-hand side of the road in advance. In this case, drivers of vehicles and horses who make a right-hand side of the road shall exercise due care to pedestrians or bicycles who stop or proceed in accordance with the new subparagraph.” Article 2 Subparag. 12 of the same Act provides that “an intersection means a part of the road crossing by T or other roads (in cases of the roads divided by the sidewalk and the roadway, referring to the roadway).”

B. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence adopted by the lower court and duly examined, there are two straight lines and bypassing lines in the resignation tunnel (the distance is not clear), and there are three straight lines or bypass signs at the point where the sign is installed, and, at the point where the sign is installed, two straight lines, two straight lines, two straight lines, and two straight lines before the right side with the road going to the right side (hereinafter “the point of this case”). The fact that all two straight lines, two straight lines, and two straight lines before the right side are connected to the road. On the two straight lines at the point of this case, the right side of the right side immediately before the arrival of the distance of the independent letter, and the fact that the Defendant was made to the right side of the instant short line with the right side of the instant middle line, while the Defendant was going to the from the right side of the resignation tunnel, can be recognized as having been made to the right side.

C. According to the above facts, the point of the Defendant’s right-hand is the intersection as prescribed by Article 2 subparag. 12 of the former Road Traffic Act, and the point of the Defendant’s right-hand is the intersection (the part connected to the road that two lanes prior to the right-hand side from the point of the instant quarter to the right-hand side from the right-hand side of Seodaemun is a separate intersection as T or two roads crossing each other). Since the Defendant’s right-hand side from the right-hand side of the two lanes, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant violated the cross-section method as prescribed by Article 25(1) of the same Act, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the facts charged of the instant case.

D. Therefore, the facts charged in this case should be pronounced not guilty because there is no proof of the facts charged. Since the court below found the defendant guilty, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the method of mistake or cross-section passage, and the defendant's assertion pointing this out is

5. Conclusion

Thus, the defendant's appeal is justified, and the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is judged again as follows.

C. Foods

The summary of the criminal facts of the instant claim for summary trial is as stated in the above Paragraph 2, and it constitutes a case where there is no proof of criminal facts for the same reason as stated in the above Paragraph 4, and thus, it is decided as per Disposition by the decision of not guilty on the defendant pursuant to the latter part of Article

Judge Lee In-bok (Presiding Judge)