If pedestrian signals, etc. on a crosswalk are red, whether the driver is obliged to protect pedestrians;

Even if the accident on the crosswalk is done, if the pedestrian signal on the crosswalk is red light, it cannot be said that the driver of the vehicle is obliged to protect the pedestrian in the crosswalk because the function as the crosswalk is lost.

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

December 13, 1983 83Do2676 decided Dec. 13, 198 (Article 3(5)67 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Criminal Accidents, No. 721, 237)

Defendant

Defendant

Daegu District Court of First Instance (84 High Court Decision 1845)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

The first point of the grounds for appeal of the defendant is that the court below found the defendant guilty because the defendant's appeal was erroneous in finding facts, or in misunderstanding the legal principles as to the crime of negligence and the crime of violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, since the defendant's appeal was found that the defendant in this case was unable to avoid the victim with the light of red signal, etc., which had gone through the intersection through the straight signal.

According to the judgment of the court below, the court below punished the facts charged of this case as a violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents. However, according to Article 3 (2) 6 and Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and Article 268 of the Criminal Act, the court below reviewed whether the defendant violated the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents by violating the duty to protect pedestrians in the crosswalk and thereby violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted by the court below and the testimony of non-indicted 1 of the party presiding witness, the traffic accident of this case occurred when the defendant driving vehicle, who was placed in the station at the distance intersection where the signal, etc. was installed in front of the police box located in the Daegu-gu New-dong Police Station, Daegu-dong Police Station, was in transit through the crosswalk. In other words, Non-indicted 1, who was on duty at the station patrol box located at approximately 10 meters away from the location of the accident, went to the scene immediately after hearing the sudden traffic of the vehicle. In other words, the traffic accident of this case was completed on the road at the crossing crossing where the victim was crossing, and the left turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn was taken after the rapid signal, and at that time, there was a system to change the traffic signal to the front turn signal. Accordingly, the pedestrian traffic signal at the crosswalk was finished at the time when the defendant driving vehicle passes the crosswalk, and therefore, it became clear that the pedestrian traffic signal of the crosswalk was already prohibited.

Therefore, in this case, it can not be said that there is no obligation to protect pedestrians in the crosswalks because it has lost its function as crosswalks, and it can not be said that it is the crosswalks as stipulated in Article 3 (2) 6 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

Therefore, according to the facts charged, it is clear that the accident in this case is an injury caused by traffic accident, and the record is bound, the 4m2902 KFFT, which is the vehicle involved at the time of the accident, can be recognized as having joined the KFFT, and thus, the KFT, which is the vehicle involved at the time of the accident, shall not be prosecuted pursuant to the main sentence of Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents. However, the public prosecutor is not guilty by applying Article 3(2)6 and (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and Article 268 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the public prosecutor should have dismissed the prosecution because the prosecution procedure becomes null and void due to the violation of the provisions of Acts. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the procedure of prosecution, which affected

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed under Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the judgment of the court below is reversed, and it is again decided as follows.

The summary of the instant facts charged is as follows.

The Defendant was a person engaged in the duties of taxi driving in Daegu 4m2902, and around 19:00 on February 7, 1984, the Defendant was driving the above taxi and operated the railroad station in front of the police station located in Daegu 3-dong, Daegu 3-dong, to a speed of about 58 km at the speed of 58 km. Since the lawsuit is installed at the crosswalk, the Defendant who is engaged in driving service is negligent in his duty of care to prevent the accident in advance due to the suspension of operation or the reduction of speed and passing through the crosswalk after ascertaining that there is no traffic person, and without examining the left side of the taxi at the same speed, found the victim non-indicted 2 crossing the right side of the above crosswalk at the right side of the crime, and did not reach the right side of the Defendant, and the Defendant was dismissed in violation of the provision of Article 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and thus, the Defendant’s prosecution procedure is dismissed.

It is so decided as per Disposition above.

Judges Bae Ki-won (Presiding Judge)