Whether or not a driver who drives a vehicle under the direction of the 4th parallel line has a duty to drive in preparation for an unauthorized crossingr.

If the date and time of the accident falls within one week, and if the place falls within the second two lanes from among the four-way streets in a large city where traffic is frequent, the driver of the motor vehicle under such traffic conditions is believed to have no person crossing without permission and will be exempted from driving, and there is no obligation to drive the motor vehicle while checking the safety of the motor vehicle, considering that there is a person who intends to cross the front of the motor vehicle in violation of the Road Traffic Regulations.

Articles 44 and 113 subparag. 1 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 268 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 88No1326 delivered on June 16, 1988

The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court.

As to the Grounds of Appeal:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, at around 01:10 on October 26, 1987, the defendant, as a taxi driver, was driving a taxi in front of the police box that is proceeding at a speed of about 60 kilometers per hour along the second line in the south-dong direction of Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu. The driver of the vehicle shall accurately operate the steering gear, brakes and other devices of the vehicle, and shall not drive the vehicle in such a way as to endanger and interfere with others according to road traffic conditions. At the time, the first line of the vehicle was the front line of the vehicle and the front line of the vehicle coming from the opposite direction, so if the front line cannot be seen well due to the head of the vehicle coming from the opposite direction, it is necessary to reduce the accident and prevent the accident by taking other appropriate measures, but the driver of the vehicle is in violation of the duty of safe driving along the road situation, and thus, the driver of the vehicle has been sentenced to a fine of no more than 1 4 east road without permission and no more than 3 1 east road.

However, the date and time of the accident is one of Eul, and the place was under way, and according to the traffic accident report by the judicial police officer who handled affairs as evidence by the court below, the road situation was the second line, which was the 4th line wide, so it cannot be said that the driver of a motor vehicle under such traffic condition is expected to believe that there is no person who will cross the front of his/her motor vehicle without permission, and that there is a person who intends to cross the front of his/her motor vehicle in violation of the Road Traffic Act and the Road Traffic Act.

Furthermore, with respect to frequent traffic in the night distance in large cities, it is obvious in light of the empirical rule that it is inevitable to find in advance the obstacles from the front door of the front door of the front door, and there is considerable difficulty in finding such obstacles. Therefore, in light of the overall traffic situation as seen above, the Defendant is only driving at normal speed, and there is no obligation to prepare against the unauthorized crossing. Thus, even though the Defendant’s operating speed at the time does not exceed the speed of Article 15 of the Road Traffic Act and Article 12 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s situation at the time was unable to show the front door well due to the storm of the front door, and thus, the lower court did not consider the function to perform the road traffic, but did not take any part in the victim’s address, and that it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the violation of the duty of safe driving.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)