[1] Whether the grounds for appeal stated in the grounds for appeal may be invoked as the grounds for appeal (negative)

[2] The meaning of "safety signs" under Article 3 (2) 1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents

[1] The grounds of appeal shall be cited in the records of trial and the facts expressed in the evidence examination by the court below, and the grounds for appeal shall be specified. Thus, it cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal to invoke the grounds for appeal as stated in the grounds of appeal.

[2] If a yellow-type yellow-shaped line with a three-dimensional shape on the surface of a road is maintained, it constitutes a "safety sign" under the proviso of Article 3 (2) 1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and it does not constitute a "safety sign" under the above provision of the Act only when a separate signboard is installed in addition to the surface indication.

[1] Article 379(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act / [2] Article 3(2)1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 2 subparag. 12 of the Road Traffic Act, and Article 5 of the Road Traffic Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 71Do909 delivered on June 29, 1971 (Gong19-2, 45) Supreme Court Decision 82Do2949 delivered on February 22, 1983 (Gong1983, 625) Supreme Court Decision 83Do375 delivered on September 13, 1983 (Gong1983, 1527), Supreme Court Decision 86Do1785 delivered on October 14, 1986 (Gong1986, 3076), Supreme Court Decision 87Do1408 delivered on November 10, 1987 (Gong198, 121)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Oi-su

High Military Court Decision 94No309 delivered on October 10, 1995

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The grounds of appeal shall be cited in the records of trial and the facts expressed in the examination of evidence by the court below, and therefore, it cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal (see Supreme Court Decision 71Do909 delivered on June 29, 197, Supreme Court Decision 87Do1408 delivered on November 10, 1987, Supreme Court Decision 86Do1785 delivered on October 14, 1986). The court below determined that the traffic accident in this case falls under Article 3 (1) (proviso) 1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and it is proper that the court below maintained the first instance court, which has been faced with an ordinary concurrent crime under Article 3 (1) 1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to an ordinary concurrent crime under Article 3 (1).

In addition, the court below is just in holding that the traffic accident in this case falls under subparagraph 1 of the proviso of Article 2 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (see Articles 2 subparag. 12 and 5 of the Road Traffic Act), and it cannot be accepted as a single opinion that the traffic accident in this case constitutes a "safety sign" under the above provision only when a separate signboard is installed in addition to the above section.

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

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)