Defendant

South Korean Court (prosecutions, public trials)

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. Facts charged;

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a k5-car (vehicle No. 1 omitted).

On June 15, 2015, the defendant, around 22:15, was going to go to the legal interest intersection in the direction of the road, the front of the road, the elementary school of the road of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city,

In this case, the driver of a motor vehicle has a duty of care to safely walk the center line without impeding the normal passage of other motor vehicles and to safely walk the center line. In this case, the driver of a motor vehicle has a duty of care to safely drive the center.

Nevertheless, the part of the front part of the victim's (vehicle number 2 omitted) driving (vehicle number 2 omitted) S Q125C of the victim non-indicted (victim number 2 omitted) who was living in the U.S. in the U.S. in the U.S. permitted zone with the central line over the red signal as it is, instead of being negligent, went to the right part of the front part of the victim's vehicle.

As a result, the Defendant suffered injury to the right shouldered salt, etc. in need of approximately two weeks of treatment by occupational negligence as above.

2. Defendant's assertion;

The defendant acknowledged the negligence of the occurrence of an accident, but he asserts that he did not commit the central crime because he did not do so within the area where the U.S.ton is permitted.

3. Determination

(a) Circumstances;

The instant accident occurred while the Defendant was in the U.S. line in the U.S. line. At the time, there was a safety sign allowing the U.S. line on the surface of the first line waiting for U.S. to make U.S. U.S., and there was no additional allowance sign on the signal, etc. at the former intersection, and thus, U.S. is allowed regardless of the new name.

B. The Central Line Offense Regulations in the proviso to the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents

Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents provides that the crime of injury by occupational negligence caused by traffic of vehicles shall not be prosecuted against the express will of the victim in principle: Provided, That the same shall not apply to the case falling under the proviso thereof. Article 3(2) of the same Act provides that "the case where a person intrudes the central line in violation of Article 13(3) of the Road Traffic Act, or crosses, turns, or turns back in violation of Article 62(2) of the same Act," and the prosecution of this case was instituted on the premise that the accident of this case constitutes the central line of the former provision.

(c) Central Line-Related Provisions;

Article 2 subparagraph 5 of the Road Traffic Act provides that "in order to clearly separate the direction of passage of vehicles and horses, the center line means a line indicated with safety signs, such as yellow solid lines and yellow domin lines, or facilities installed with medians or fences, etc." Article 4 of the Road Traffic Act and Article 8 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act provides that "safety signs" as the type of traffic safety facilities. According to Article 8 (2) [Attachment Table 6] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act (see attached Form 501), the center line shall be marked with the center line of a road, and three kinds, such as yellow solid lines, yellow lines, yellow lines, yellow lines and domin lines, etc. shall be divided into three categories, as follows:

- The yellow solid lines shall indicate that vehicles and horses are not allowed to go beyond.

· The yellow point line may temporarily go beyond the opposite lane in the opposite direction with the traffic of the opposite direction, but it indicates that it should go back to the opposite direction.

· The uniforms of yellow do not go beyond the opposite direction on the side where a motor vehicle occupies, but return to the opposite direction on the side where a motor vehicle occupies.

In addition, Article 13 (3) of the Road Traffic Act provides that "the drivers of vehicles and horses shall pass along the center (if a central line is installed, referring to the central line; hereinafter the same shall apply) of the road (in the case of the road divided into the sidewalk and the roadway, referring to the roadway)."

(d) Provisions pertaining to internships;

Article 18 (1) of the Road Traffic Act provides that "the drivers of motor vehicles and riders of horses shall not cross, walk, or backward the road by driving their motor vehicles and riders of horses in cases where it is likely to impede the normal flow of traffic of pedestrians, other motor vehicles and riders of horses." Article 4 of the Road Traffic Act and Article 8 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provide that "safety signs" shall be classified into traffic safety facilities. Article 8 (2) [Attachment 6] Article 8 (5) [Attachment 6] [Attachment 6] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act (refer to the attached Form] Article 502 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act only provides that "the driver of a motor vehicle and riders of horses shall indicate that the motor vehicles and riders of horses are the U-turn area where the U-turn is permitted." Unlike the above provision, there is no provision with respect

E. Determination

(1) The Defendant, in accordance with the safety signs that allow U.S. full time a U.S. internships, carried U.S. lines according to the U.S.’s marking line within the U.S. permitted zone. Although a vehicle going beyond the center of the road was temporarily included in U.S., it was normally carried out according to safety signs with intent to continue proceeding in accordance with the upper right side of the center line pursuant to Article 13(3) of the Road Traffic Act. In this case, it is not deemed that the Defendant’s act was 3) or that the center line was carried out with intent to attack the center line in violation of Article 13(3) of the Road Traffic Act.

(2) In addition, the former part of the proviso of Article 3(2)2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents provides that "in cases where the central line is invaded in violation of the provisions of Article 13(3) of the Road Traffic Act," and the latter part of the same subparagraph provides that "in cases of crossing, internship, or moving backward in violation of the provisions of Article 62 of the Road Traffic Act," it is reasonable to interpret that the act of internship within the permissible zone for internship of general roads, such as this case, is not included in "in cases where the central line is invaded in violation of the provisions of Article 13(3) of the Road Traffic Act" in the former part of the same subparagraph (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do3436, Mar. 15, 2012).

Although the defendant was negligent in a state where it is likely to obstruct the normal passage of other vehicles in violation of Article 18(1) of the Road Traffic Act, considering the fact that Article 13(3) of the Road Traffic Act provides for the prohibition of the medianing of the central line and separately provides for the special provisions on crossing, internship, and backward under Articles 18(1) and 62 of the Road Traffic Act, the act of ordinary internship in accordance with the safety signs must be treated separately from the act of the central line be treated as the act of the violation, and there may be no expanded interpretation that all negligent internships constitute the act of the central line be regarded as the act of the violation of the central line.

Therefore, the accident in this case does not constitute an accident by the central crime under Article 3(1) and 3(2) proviso 2 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, and thus, a judgment of innocence should be rendered pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, the remainder of the facts charged except for central intrusion falls under the crime under Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and Article 268 of the Criminal Act. Since the Defendant’s vehicle is covered by comprehensive insurance, this part of the indictment cannot be prosecuted pursuant to Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents. Ultimately, the prosecution of this case constitutes a case where the prosecution procedure becomes null and void in violation of the provisions of the Act

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Min-soo

1) For example, a sign allowing a U-turn only at the time of a pedestrian signal or left-hand turn.

2) The prohibition of crossing, internship, or moving behind an expressway, etc. is provided.

3) The case where the central line is not set up in a crosswalk where the central line is not set up (Supreme Court Decision 2000Do5848, 2011Do12093) is separate from the case of this case where a sea-going vehicle gets into an opposite lane and runs along an opposite lane, or is going through the crosswalk through the crosswalk, and is normally proceeding in accordance with the Uton safety mark. Thus, it cannot be deemed that a sea-going driver’s permissible marking line in the instant case is the central line as provided in Article 2 subparag. 5 of the Road Traffic Act.

4) In response to the fact-finding inquiry by this Court (as of January 4, 2016), the Gyeongbuk Provincial Police Agency responded to the fact-finding that “The indication of the internship area does not correspond to the central line provided for in Article 2 of the Road Traffic Act and Article 501 of the Road Traffic Act, so it does not constitute the central line.”

Note 5) In the case of the yellow ray’s median line, the center line may be deemed as a crime of invasion without due care (Supreme Court Decision 86Do2597 delivered on July 7, 1987). However, as a typical reverse driving matter, there exists a special duty of care pursuant to Article 8(2) [Attachment 6] [Attachment 6] [Attachment 6] [Attachment 501] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act.