Defendant

Prosecutor

Admonishment decoration

Daejeon District Court Decision 2010Gohap3073 Decided December 9, 2010

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

The Defendant, while bypassing to red signal, obstructed the traffic of the victim vehicle operated under the signals and caused the instant traffic accident, is responsible for violating the signal.

2. Determination

Article 4 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 6(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Public Administration and Security No. 156, Aug. 24, 2010) provides that “motor vehicles and horses shall stop immediately before a stop line, crosswalk, and intersection: Provided, That motor vehicles and horses may make a right-hand turn without impeding the traffic of other motor vehicles and horses traveling under the new subparagraph; however, with respect to the signals displayed by green light, motor vehicles and horses may be right-hand and by right-hand turn so as not to interfere with other traffic, and if other traffic pursuant to the new subparagraph is not obstructed at a place where a non-protection circuit sign is marked, they may turn to the right-hand turn, but in such cases, they shall be liable for violating the signal.”

Examining the purport of allowing a bypass from a red signal in light of the content and method of the foregoing attached Table, it seems that vehicles and horses entering the intersection may make a bypass in order to ensure smooth traffic flow even with red signal, but it is not the purport of imposing a safety obligation by sufficiently examining traffic conditions so that it does not interfere with traffic in order to protect the trust of other vehicles already operated under the new subparagraph. In the event of an accident during the course of the bypassing, it is not the purport of imposing a responsibility for “violation of signal” under Article 3(2)1 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

In addition, the above Enforcement Rule [Attachment 2] amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Public Administration and Security No. 156 on August 24, 2010 provides that "motor vehicles and horses may make a right turn to the left at the place where a non-protection seat sign or a non-protection seat line sign is marked" to the effect that a green light is worn out, and thus, vehicles and horses are responsible for violating the signal when they interfere with other traffic in the process of moving to the non-protection seat line. Considering the fact that the reason for such amendment was aimed at preventing any interference with traffic in the process of moving to the non-protection seat line, even if another traffic interfered with other traffic while moving to the non-protection seat line, the defendant cannot be held liable for violating the signal based on the above attached Table without any explicit content as to the responsibility for violating the signal, so it cannot be viewed that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles and dismissal of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles as to the prosecution by the defendant at the time of the accident of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jin-man (Presiding Judge)