In a case where a public prosecution is instituted by applying the proviso of Article 3(1) and (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and Article 268 of the Criminal Act, whether a trial result does not constitute any ground provided for in the proviso of Article 3(2) of the same Act, a public prosecution cannot be instituted for any reason provided for in the main sentence of Article 3(2) or the main sentence of Article 4(1) of the same Act, and where it is not recognized that a defendant committed a crime provided for in Article 3(1) of the same Act,

In a case where a public prosecution is instituted by applying the proviso of Article 3(1) and (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and Article 268 of the Criminal Act, in principle, in a case where a trial result leads to the absence of any ground provided for in the proviso of Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and where a public prosecution cannot be instituted due to any ground provided for in the main sentence of Article 3(2) or the main sentence of Article 4(1) of the same Act, a judgment dismissing a public prosecution shall be rendered. However, in a case where a trial on the substance of a case is proved to have already been completed and it is not recognized that a defendant committed a crime under Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, if a fact-finding court rendered a judgment of innocence on the facts charged in violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents

Article 3(1) and (2), and Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents; Article 268 of the Criminal Act; Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act; Article 327 subparag. 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4638 Delivered on October 24, 2003

Defendant

Prosecutor

Gwangju District Court Decision 2012No704 Decided August 31, 2012

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In a case where a public prosecution is instituted by applying the proviso of Article 3(1) and (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and Article 268 of the Criminal Act, in principle, in the event that, as a result of a trial, there is no ground provided for in the proviso of Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and where a public prosecution cannot be instituted on the grounds provided for in the main sentence of Article 3(2) or the main sentence of Article 4(1) of the same Act, a judgment dismissing a public prosecution shall be rendered. However, in a case where a trial on the substance of a case is already completed and it is proved that there is no ground provided for in the proviso of Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and it is not recognized that a defendant committed a crime under Article 3(1) of the same Act, even if there is a ground provided for in the main sentence of Article 3(2) or the main sentence of Article 4(1) of the same Act, if the fact-finding court has pronounced a substantial judgment on the facts charged

The court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted the defendant on the ground that the defendant was not guilty on the ground that he violated the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, which caused the victim to suffer an open room around the snow and snow, due to the negligence of operating the vehicle in violation of traffic signal for two weeks, even if based on all evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the defendant was insufficient to recognize that the accident of this case occurred due to the negligence in violation of the signal.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal principles and the records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the requirements for dismissing public prosecution or the conditions of lawsuit, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ko Young-han (Presiding Justice)