(영문) 부산지방법원 2010.4.16.선고 2010노1 판결

The prosecutor dismissed the prosecution by deeming that the traffic accident in this case constitutes "the case where the insurance or mutual aid is subscribed" under Article 4 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, since the part concerning personal compensation I for the damage that the defendant bears with respect to the victim victim victim victim victim victim victim victim victim victim C and Park C1 is guaranteed by insurance, and the remaining part concerning personal compensation II is guaranteed by other special terms and conditions for driving security of the defendant's vehicle in which the defendant was admitted. If the expanded interpretation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents is interpreted like the judgment of the court below, it is unfair that the judgment below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on insurance under Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Summary of the facts charged

피고인은 부산 X라XXXX호 카니발 승합차를 운전한 사람이다.

피고인은 2009. 4. 13. 21:00경 위 승합차를 운전하여 부산 남구 문현동에 있는 도시고속도로 하행선 편도 2차로 중 2차로를 따라 문현터널 방면에서 5부두 방향으로 원심 공동피고인 서C2가 운전하는 XX마XXXX호 클릭 승용차의 뒤편에서 진행하였다. 당시는 비가 내리는 야간이고 그곳은 왼쪽으로 굽은 도로이므로, 자동차 운전업무에 종사하는 사람으로서는 속도를 줄이고 안전거리를 유지하며 전방을 주시하여 안전하게 운전하여야 할 업무상 주의의무가 있었다.

그럼에도, 피고인은 전방주시를 태만히 한 채 그대로 진행한 과실로, 피고인이 운전하는 위 승합차의 앞범퍼 부분으로 마침 같은 차로 전방에서 정C3이 운전하던 06소 XXXX호 에스엠5 승용차가 가드레일을 들이받은 교통사고를 정리하면서 다른 차량 진행을 유도하던 피해자 이C를 미처 피하지 못하고 피해자 이C의 몸통 부위를 들이받고, 계속하여 위 클릭 승용차에 부딪혀 튕겨 떨어지는 피해자 박C1을 위 승합차의 앞유리 부분으로 들이받았다.

The Defendant suffered, by such occupational negligence, the injury to the victim Lee Jong-C, such as the left-hand pelpel, etc. requiring medical treatment for about four weeks, and the victim Park Jong-C1 suffered, respectively, the injury of the victim such as the pelle of the left-hand pelle abandonment, etc. requiring medical treatment for about ten weeks.

B. Judgment of the court below

1) In full view of the records of this case and the fact-finding results of this court on the insurance company, the following facts can be acknowledged.

가) 이 사건 사고 당시 피고인이 운전한 차량은 부산 X라XXXX호 카니발 승합차로서 강C4의 소유이다. 강C4는 위 카니발 승합차에 관하여 자신을 피보험자로 하여만 48세 이상 한정 운전, 기명 1인 한정 특약을 조건으로 자동차보험 주식회사의 자동차종합보험에 가입 하였으므로(수사기록 43쪽), 피고인이 위 카니발 승합차를 운전한 경우에는 대인배상I 에 해당하는 손해의 배상만 보장된다.

나) 한편, 이 사건 사고 당시 피고인은 57로XXXX호 아반떼 차량에 관하여 피보험자를 자신으로 하여 보험 주식회사의 자동차종합보험에 가입한 상태였다. 그 보험의 내용은 아래와 같다.

(1) The issues of collateral are personal compensation I (the amount prescribed by the Enforcement Decree of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act), personal compensation II (one hundred million won), personal property compensation (one hundred million won), self-physical accident (Death KRW 30 million, injury KRW 15 million, injury KRW 30 million), and non-insurance injury (the maximum amount per person of the insured).

(2) The above insurance is automatically applied to the "influenite injury" insured, and according to the above special clause, if the insured suffers damage as a result of legal liability for the personal accident or personal accident that occurred while driving another motor vehicle, the insured shall be deemed to be an insured motor vehicle under the provisions of the general terms and conditions, such as "influence II (excluding personal liability I) of the common terms and conditions of the other motor vehicle driven by the insured" and shall be compensated in accordance with the common terms and conditions.

2) Determination

In light of the provisions of Article 4(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and the legislative purpose and purport thereof, "in a case where a vehicle causing a traffic accident is covered by special cases such as criminal punishment under Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents" includes not only the case where the vehicle causing the traffic accident is covered by the insurance, etc., but also the case where the driver of the vehicle is covered by the insurance, etc. related to the operation of the vehicle, the right to prompt and accurate compensation for the total amount of the traffic accident compensation under Article 4(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents is granted to the victim (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do20

According to the above facts, the compensation for damages that the defendant bears against the victim Lee-C and Park C1 due to the traffic accident in this case is guaranteed by the insurance of the automobile insurance company in which the defendant was admitted to the car knife knife that he operated, and the remainder of the compensation II is guaranteed by the special terms and conditions of automobile driving security among the insurance of the insurance company in which the defendant was admitted. In such a case, it constitutes insurance within the meaning of Article 4 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents that requires the full compensation for damages caused by the traffic accident of the insured.

Thus, the public prosecution against the defendant is invalid in violation of the provisions of law, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The judgment of this court is dismissed.

In full examination of the records of this case, the court below's dismissal of the prosecution of this case based on the above judgment is just and acceptable (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do10147, Dec. 24, 2009). It does not seem that the judgment of the court below contains an error of law as pointed out by the prosecutor.

Therefore, prosecutor's argument is without merit.

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.