Unauthorized crossings and drivers on the road for the exclusive use of motor vehicles;

In accordance with the Road Traffic Act, motorways are installed to ensure that only motor vehicles can move, and pedestrians, other than motor vehicles, and vehicles and horses, other than motor vehicles, are not allowed to walk or cross. Therefore, the driver of a motor vehicle operating motorways is not obliged to pay a duty of care to slow down the motor vehicle in advance, unless there are special circumstances.

Article 268 of the Criminal Act, Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Road Traffic Act, and Article 58 of the Road Traffic Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Kim Sung-chul

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 88No2625 delivered on July 1, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

Since motorways under the Road Traffic Act are installed to allow only motor vehicles to pass along or cross the motorways (Article 2 subparag. 2 and Article 58), pedestrians or motor vehicles and horses, other than motor vehicles, shall not pass or cross the motorways (Article 2 subparag. 2 and Article 58). Thus, a driver of a motor vehicle operating motorways, barring special circumstances, has no duty of care to drive slowly so that pedestrians who walk the motorways without permission may be anticipated to pass along the motorways.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that the 88 Olympic Road, the location of the accident in this case, was 80 kilometers a speed of 75 kilometers a speed from the first line to the speed of 75 kilometers a speed, and that the defendant did not immediately discover the victim who was crossing the roadway from the first line to the first line of 75 kilometers a speed, and did not avoid it. However, there is no special circumstance such as theory that the defendant at the time did not recognize that the above victim was aware of, or could have anticipated to have known, crossing the roadway, and thus there was no negligence in the defendant's duty of care as the driver, and there was no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to criminal negligence, as alleged in the arguments, and each precedent of the lawsuit does not constitute an appropriate precedent applicable to this case.

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-seok (Presiding Justice)