Defendant

Prosecutor

Minimum bounds

Daejeon District Court Decision 2009Ma1947 Decided November 15, 2010

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

The Defendant, while bypassing to red signal, obstructed the traffic of the victim vehicle that was sent under the signals and caused the instant traffic accident, is responsible for violating the signal.

B. Unreasonable sentencing

Decision : 4 million won

2. Determination

A. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

Article 4 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 6(2) [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Public Administration and Security No. 156, Aug. 24, 2010) provides that “motor vehicles and horses shall stop immediately before a stop line, crosswalk, and intersection: Provided, That vehicles and horses may make a right-hand turn without impeding the traffic of other motor vehicles and horses traveling under the new subparagraph; however, with respect to the signals displayed by a green light, they may make a right-hand turn so that they do not interfere with other traffic under the new subparagraph; however, they may turn right-hand turn if they do not interfere with the traffic of other traffic under the new subparagraph at a place where a non-protection circuit sign is marked, and in such cases, they shall be liable for violation of the signal.”

Examining the purport of allowing a bypass from a red signal in light of the content and method of the foregoing attached Table, it seems that vehicles and horses entering the intersection may make a bypass in order to ensure smooth traffic flow even with red signal, but it is not the purport of imposing a safety obligation by sufficiently examining traffic conditions so that it does not interfere with traffic in order to protect the trust of other vehicles already operated under the new subparagraph. In the event of an accident during the course of the bypassing, it is not the purport of imposing a responsibility for “violation of signal” under Article 3(2)1 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

In addition, the above Enforcement Rule [Attachment 2] amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Public Administration and Security No. 156 on August 24, 2010 provides that "any motor vehicle or horse may turn to the left at a right place or right place; 2. A motor vehicle or horse may turn to the left at a place where a non-protection seat sign or a non-protection seat line sign is marked." The reason for the amendment is to prevent any interference with other traffic in the course of the non-protection seating on the non-protection seat line from being responsible for the violation of signals. Considering the fact that the reason for the amendment was to prevent any interference with other traffic in the course of the non-protection seating on the non-protection seat line, even if another traffic interfered with other traffic, the defendant cannot be held liable for the violation of signals based on the above attached Table without any explicit content as to the responsibility for the violation of signals.

Therefore, although the court below's assumptive determination is somewhat inappropriate, it is just in the conclusion that the defendant is not responsible for violating signal signals, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles that affected the judgment, and this part

B. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing

The result of the victims' death, serious injury, etc. was not agreed upon, but the negligence of the drivers of victimized vehicles is significant, and there are no criminal records that can be taken into account separately in addition to the criminal records of the same kind before about 28 years, and other various sentencing conditions specified in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, character, conduct and environment, are not less complicated, and thus, the prosecutor's assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition (However, the court below's decision 2nd page 1 is that the "on the right side" in each of the subparagraphs 2 and 5th page 11 is a clerical error in the right side of the left side, so it is evident that the "on the right side" is a clerical error in the left side, and it is correct ex officio in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure).

Judges Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Judge)