Defendant

Prosecutor

Freeboard milk

Attorney Kang Jong-chul (Korean National Assembly)

Jeonju District Court Decision 2007Ma240 Decided July 5, 2007

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents provides for special cases concerning cases where a vehicle that caused a traffic accident is insured or subscribed to mutual aid, and in light of the purport of the provision, the above special cases can be applied only when the vehicle that caused a traffic accident is insured, but the court below rejected the prosecution by applying the above special cases to the facts charged in this case where the vehicle that caused the traffic accident is not insured. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected

2. Determination

A. Summary of the facts charged

At around 19:30 on November 27, 2006 (vehicle number 1 omitted), the Defendant driven a car 6-line van, and continued the road front of the Dong office located in the Jung-dong office in the front city of the front city of the front city of the front city of the front city of the front city of the front city to a speed of about 40 km at a speed of about 20 km from the front city of the second-speed road of the front city of the front city of the front city of the front city of the front city of the front city of the front city of the front city of the front city of the front city of the front city of the front city of the middle city of the front city of the front city of the front city of the front city of the front city of the front city of the front city of the front city of the front city of the front city of the front city of the front city of the front city of the front city of the front city of the front city of the middle city of the front.

B. The judgment of the court below

The facts charged of this case are crimes falling under Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and Article 268 of the Criminal Act, and where the driver of a vehicle who caused a traffic accident purchases a comprehensive insurance policy under Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, he cannot institute a public prosecution, and since the defendant's purchase of a comprehensive insurance policy is recognized, the prosecution charged of this case is dismissed on the ground that the procedure for instituting a

C. Judgment of the court below

1) Facts of recognition

The following facts are recognized in full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below.

① A vehicle (vehicle No. 1 omitted) which was driven by the Defendant at the time of the instant crime, is the so-called “bandon vehicle” and was the non-insurance vehicle not owned by the Defendant.

② At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant, as the insured against (vehicle No. 2 omitted), was insured against the same fire marine insurance company, with the coverage period from June 10, 2006 to June 10, 2007, including personal injury I (the amount prescribed by the Enforcement Decree of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act), personal injury II (unlimited to), personal injury II (30 million won), personal injury (the death and disability KRW 100 million), automobile injury (the injury KRW 100 million), and non-life-free injury (the maximum KRW 200 million), etc.

③ According to the terms and conditions of the above automobile insurance that the Defendant subscribed, the term “the special terms and conditions for driving security of another motor vehicle” are automatically applied to the insured. According to the above special terms and conditions, in a case where the insured suffers damage as a result of the legal liability for the personal accident or personal accident that occurred while driving another motor vehicle, the insured shall be deemed as the insured motor vehicle under the ordinary terms and conditions, the term “Ⅱ”, “personal damage”, “self-physical accident”, and “automobile injury”, and shall be deemed as the insured motor vehicle and shall be entitled to compensation from the insurance company.

④ After committing the instant crime, the victim was fully compensated for the damage, including the agreed amount, according to the aforementioned special terms and conditions of the automobile insurance that the Defendant subscribed.

2) Determination

A) Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents provides that “If a “motor vehicle causing a traffic accident” is covered by insurance or mutual aid pursuant to the provisions of Articles 4 and 126 through 128 of the Insurance Business Act, Article 8 of the Land Transport Promotion Act, or Article 36 of the Trucking Transport Business Act, the driver of the motor vehicle who committed the crime as provided in the main sentence of Article 3(2) shall not be prosecuted.”

The above provision refers to the situation where the driving of a motor vehicle becomes an essential element for people's lives through the enhancement of the breadth of a motor vehicle and the establishment of a self-driving system, and it is established with the purpose of promoting the convenience of people's lives by introducing the motor vehicle insurance system to ensure prompt and reliable compensation for the damage caused by a traffic accident by inducing its subscription, and by exempting the driver who caused a traffic accident from criminal punishment, and resolving the legal subdivision and side effects caused by a traffic accident in advance, and preventing the mass production of a criminal recorder (see, e.g., Constitutional Court en banc Decision 90Hun-Ma110, 136, Jan. 16, 1997).

In addition, Article 4 (2) of the same Act provides that "the term "insurance or mutual aid" in paragraph (1) of the same Article provides that "in case of traffic accidents, the whole amount of ordinary expenses shall be paid in lieu of the insured or mutual aid association members under the Insurance Business Act, or the mutual aid association members under the Army Promotion Act or the Trucking Transport Business Act, or according to the terms and conditions of insurance or the terms and conditions of mutual aid approved for the damage compensation between the insured or mutual aid association members under the Trucking Transport Business Act, and the standard amount of payment prescribed in the terms and conditions of insurance or mutual aid for other damage shall be paid in preference to the insured or mutual aid association members under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and ultimately, it refers to the insurance or mutual aid which compensates the total amount of the damage compensation for traffic accidents caused by the insured or mutual aid members under the name of the insured

In light of the legislative intent of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and the systematic interpretation of Article 4(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, where a vehicle which caused a traffic accident is insured, the "vehicle which caused the traffic accident" shall be interpreted not only to be insured but also to be the case where the "motor vehicle driver" has taken out the insurance and the "motor vehicle driver has received full compensation for the damage caused by the traffic accident". In this case, in accordance with the "Special Provisions concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents Act", the motor vehicle insurance of the Dongbu Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. that the defendant joined for the case includes the case where the victim has received full compensation for the damage caused by a large or large-scale accident that occurred while the defendant drives another motor vehicle in accordance with the "Special Provisions concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents Act", it shall be considered to be included in the case where the insurance company compensates

B) Meanwhile, the prosecutor asserts that the scope of “the vehicle causing a traffic accident” under Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, which stipulates the conditions of prosecution, should be narrowly applied.

However, if the scope of punishment is limited to the grounds for the dismissal of illegality and responsibility in the interpretation of penal provisions, the conditions of prosecution, or the grounds for exemption from punishment, which is the grounds for the dismissal of punishment, the scope of punishment for an offender is expanded and disadvantageous to an offender. This is not allowed in violation of the principle of prohibition of analogical interpretation, which is the derived principle of the principle of no punishment without law (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 96Do1167 delivered on March 20, 197, etc.). The prosecutor's above assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

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

Judges Seo Jong-sung(Presiding Judge)