Whether a person who continues to cross a crosswalk after a pedestrian signal has been changed falls under Article 3 subparagraph 6 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and Article 48 subparagraph 3 of the Road Traffic Act.

Even if the pedestrian signal starts to cross the crosswalk because it is sufficient time to cross the road, it shall be deemed that the pedestrian signal is waiting on the crosswalk, and even if the pedestrian signal starts to cross the crosswalk, it is not possible to say that the pedestrian signal was changed to a stop signal before the end of the crossing, just because the pedestrian signal was not finished within the pedestrian signal cycle, and the pedestrian’s protection cannot be given up, and such pedestrian shall be protected as pedestrian on the crosswalk until the end, and if the pedestrian signal entered the crosswalk and then changed in the middle, it shall be deemed that the pedestrian signal was just if the pedestrian signal was changed to a stop signal, and if the pedestrian’s duty of care to cross the crosswalk was changed to a stop signal, it is necessary to maintain the pedestrian traffic accident in violation of the provisions of Article 3 of the Road Traffic Act, and if the pedestrian’s duty of care was changed to prevent the pedestrian traffic accident in violation of the provisions of Article 4 of the Road Traffic Act, it is still necessary to protect the pedestrian.

Article 3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 48 of the Road Traffic Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Incheon District Court of First Instance (90 High Court Decision 1449)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The case is remanded to the Incheon District Court.

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor is that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant violated the duty to protect pedestrians on the crosswalk, and the defendant's driver's accident vehicle is admitted to the mutual aid association, and thus, the dismissal of the prosecution is dismissed on the ground that there is no right to institute a prosecution. It is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents in Part of

Therefore, the court below found, based on the evidence revealed by the court below, that the victim of this case continued to cross the crosswalk because of the fact that the pedestrian signal was changed to a green light, etc. on the crosswalk, which is the place where the accident of this case, and later delayed crossing, despite the fact that the green signal was changed to a red signal, it cannot be seen as violating the duty of protection of pedestrians on the crosswalk as provided in Article 48 subparagraph 3 of the Road Traffic Act, even if the defendant did not continue to cross the crosswalk, and that the signal on the above crosswalk was confirmed to be red signal on the third line on the road of the 3rd line, and the accident of this case was caused by the collision with the defendant taxi who was trying to enter the above crosswalk, making a third line, and the accident of this case occurred on the crosswalk. However, since the pedestrian signal on the above crosswalk was a red signal, etc. on the above crosswalk at the time of the accident of this case, the defendant cannot be seen as being in violation of the duty of protection of pedestrians on the crosswalk, and thus, the prosecution against the defendant cannot be prosecuted under the provision of this case.

However, even if the pedestrian signal starts to cross the crosswalk because it is sufficient time to cross the road, it shall not be sufficient to cross the crosswalk, and even if the pedestrian signal starts to cross the crosswalk, it shall not be deemed that the pedestrian walk is just because the pedestrian signal has not been changed to a stop signal prior to the end of crossing, and the pedestrian’s protection cannot be waived, and such pedestrian shall be protected as a pedestrian on the crosswalk until the end, and it shall be the same even if the pedestrian signal entered the crosswalk and then changed in the middle, and even if the pedestrian signal was changed to a stop signal, it shall be deemed that the above pedestrian’s duty of care is not to be protected under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Traffic Accidents, because it is not possible for the defendant to temporarily stop the road in violation of the provisions of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Traffic Accidents, even if the pedestrian signal was changed to a stop signal on the crosswalk, and thus, it shall be deemed that it constitutes an unlawful act of violating the provisions of Article 2 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Safety of Pedestrians, and thus, it shall be deemed that the defendant still bear such duty of care.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed by applying Articles 364(6) and 366 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the case shall be remanded to the Incheon District Court which is the original court. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Sung Chang-chul (Presiding Judge)