The case holding that although it does not fall under the median of the central line under Article 3 (2) 2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents because it caused a traffic accident due to inevitable circumstances, it constitutes a crime of occupational injury or death and violation of Article 108 of the Road Traffic Act.

In a case where a vehicle on a overtaking vessel is intruded without any inevitable reason, it does not constitute the median of the median line under Article 3(2)2 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents. However, in the course of the driving of the expressway, the Defendant neglected to take measures to reduce the speed of the vehicle on the overtaking vessel and to immediately operate the vehicle on the overtaking vessel while taking into account the movement of the vehicle on the overtaking vessel, thereby avoiding the vehicle on the overtaking vessel from entering the overtaking vessel by the vehicle on the overtaking vessel, and in a case where the vehicle on the overtaking vessel conflicts with the vehicle on the opposite vessel beyond the median line, it constitutes the crime of occupational death and death, and the crime of violation of Article 108 of the Road Traffic Act.

Article 268 of the Criminal Act, Article 3(2)2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents

Defendant

Defendant

Busan District Court Decision 90No1260 delivered on July 4, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the evidence in the judgment of the court below, the criminal facts of this case against the defendant can be recognized, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles or the rules of evidence as pointed out.

However, according to the evidence revealed by the court below, even if the defendant proceeded with an urban expressway around the time when he proceeded with the urban expressway in the court below's ruling, he can be found that the accident of this case occurred due to the collision with the motor vehicle which is overtaking the overtaking vessel by getting ahead of it into the main lane in order to avoid the sudden operation of the vehicle A, which was driven by the defendant, and then getting out of the main lane in order to avoid the operation of the vehicle A, which was driven by the defendant, and then go ahead of it, it can be recognized that the accident of this case occurred. Thus, if the defendant intrudes the central line without any unavoidable reason, it shall not be deemed as the median line under Article 3 (2) 2 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents. However, as determined by the court below, the defendant's act of special case No. 8 of the Road Traffic Act does not affect the defendant's act of taking advantage of the speed of the vehicle A, and if the defendant's act of special case No. 2 of the Road Traffic Act does not affect the victim's punishment. 30 of this case.

Ultimately, the argument is without merit.

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

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)