(a) Whether a traffic signal violation by a crossing pedestrian constitutes a traffic signal violation under the proviso to Article 3 (2) 1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents;

B. In a case where a public prosecution is instituted for a violation of the proviso of Article 3(2)1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, whether the court can determine whether the violation of Article 3(2)6 of the same Act is permitted

(a) In full view of the provisions of subparagraph 11 of Article 2, Article 5, Articles 4 through 6, and 9 attached Tables 3 and 4 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, the signal apparatus on the crosswalk is not clear that the signal apparatus for pedestrians and pedestrians to walk on the crosswalk is for the operation of a vehicle with the signal apparatus for pedestrians and the signal apparatus for pedestrians to walk on the crosswalk, and if the signal apparatus for pedestrians and pedestrians becomes a green which is a traffic signal for pedestrians, if the driver of the vehicle shocks the pedestrian who walk on the crosswalk according to such signal, the signal apparatus constitutes a separate matter when the driver violates the duty to protect pedestrians as provided in Article 3 (2) proviso of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and it cannot be said that it constitutes the case of driving in violation of the signal apparatus as provided in subparagraph 1 of the proviso of the same Article.

B. If a public prosecution was instituted on the ground of a violation of the proviso of Article 3(2)1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, the court cannot determine whether the defendant violated the proviso of Article 3(2)6 beyond the scope of the trial.

(a) The proviso of Article 3(2)1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents; Article 3(2)6 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents; Articles 254 and 298 of the Criminal Procedure Act;

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 87No5287 delivered on February 19, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In full view of the provisions of subparagraph 11 of Article 2 and Article 5 of the Road Traffic Act, Articles 4 through 6 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and attached Tables 3 and 4 of Article 9, the signal apparatus on the crosswalk does not unfresh the signal apparatus for the operation of a vehicle by a traffic signal apparatus for pedestrians who intend to pass the crosswalk, and if the signal apparatus for the crossing pedestrians becomes a green which is a pedestrian traffic signal, if the driver of the vehicle shocks the pedestrian who walk along the crosswalk, the signal apparatus constitutes a separate problem when the driver violates the duty to protect pedestrians under the proviso of Article 3 (2) 6 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and it cannot be said that it constitutes the case of driving in violation of the signal apparatus under subparagraph 1 of the proviso of Article 3 of the same Act.

As above, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no violation of law as otherwise alleged.

In addition, as long as a public prosecution is instituted on the ground of a violation of the proviso of Article 3(2)1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, the court cannot determine whether the defendant violates the proviso of Article 3(2)6 of the Act beyond the scope of the trial.

All arguments are groundless.

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

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)