A. The meaning of the former part of Article 3(2)2 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (hereinafter “Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents”) “if a person gets involved in the center line of

(b) The case holding that, in a case where a bus driver who was to turn to the left at a three-distance and faced the error of the injured party's driver who was pushed to the median line in the opposite direction with a bus, even if the front wheels of the bus was relatively small on the central line at the time of the occurrence of the accident, it cannot be deemed as a central collision accident stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, even if the front wheels

A. The phrase “when a traffic accident is committed by the median line of the road along which the lane is installed in violation of the provisions of Article 13(2) of the Road Traffic Act” in the former part of Article 3(2) proviso of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents refers to the case where the act of traffic accident is caused by the act of driving a vehicle by breaking the median line of the road. In other words, as long as the act of intrusion by the median line directly causes a traffic accident, the location of the accident does not need to be the opposite line beyond the median line. However, if the act of intrusion by the median line is not the direct cause of the occurrence of the traffic accident, the traffic accident is not included in all, on the ground that the traffic accident occurred during the course of the median line.

B. The case holding that, when a bus driver left a left-hand turn and entered national highways, the driver's error of the victim's driver who was frighted with a central line in the opposite direction shocked with a bus, even if the front qui of the bus at the time of the occurrence of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident, it cannot be viewed as a central collision accident provided for in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, even if the front qui of the bus at the time of the accident at the time

The former part of Article 3(2) proviso of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents

(a) Supreme Court Decision 90Do2000 delivered on January 11, 1991 (Gong1991, 783). Supreme Court Decision 90Do536 delivered on September 25, 1990 (Gong1990, 2217)

A

Prosecutor

Msan District Court Decision 90No1085 delivered on April 12, 1991

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Mapo District Court Panel Division.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents:

Article 3(2) proviso of Article 3(2) proviso of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents "when a traffic accident occurs due to the act of driving a vehicle in violation of the provisions of Article 13(2) of the Road Traffic Act" means the case where the act of driving a vehicle in violation of the central line of the road in violation of the legislative intent of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents. Therefore, as long as the act of intrusion by the central line directly causes a traffic accident, the place of the accident must be the opposite line beyond the central line, even if the place of the accident is not the case where the act of intrusion by the central line is not the direct cause of the occurrence of the traffic accident, if the traffic accident occurred in the course of the central line, the traffic accident is not all included (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do200, Jan. 11, 1991).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, while the defendant operated a bus with the front wheels of the bus in order to turn to the right from the long-distance long-distance long-distance long-term long-term long-term long-term long-term long-term long-term long-term long-term, the court below acknowledged that the victim B's malfunction, which was faced with the central line in the long-term long-term long-term long-term long-term long-term long-term long-term long-term long-term long-term long-term long-term long-term long-term long-term long-term long-term long-term long-term long-term long-term long-term long-term long-term long-term long-term long-term long-term long-term long-term long-term long-term long-term long-term long-term long-term long-term long-term long-term long-term long-term long-term long-term long-term long-term long-term long-term long-term long-term long-term long-term long-term long-term long-term long-term long-term.

2. As to the violation of the Road Traffic Act:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below judged that the indictment procedure constitutes invalid in violation of the provisions of the Act on the ground that the above bus is a member of the National Federation of Bus Transport Business Associations, on the ground that the above bus is a member of the mutual aid association of the National Federation of Bus Transport Business Associations.

The court below seems to have judged as above by the certificate of subscription to the bus federation of 34th investigation records.

However, according to the above documents, the above bus is considered to have not joined the so-called large-scale mutual aid and to have not joined the large-scale mutual aid, so if we look alone, the violation of the Road Traffic Act in this case due to the damage of property does not constitute a case where there is no right of prosecution under the Act on Special Cases concerning

The court below's decision that the above bus is deemed to have been subscribed to a large-scale mutual aid, and that this part of the indictment procedure is unlawful is ultimately an unlawful act that affected the conclusion of the judgment, by erroneously understanding the contents of evidence as to this part or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as to this point. The grounds for appeal assigning this error

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)