Defendant

Prosecutor

Fixed number of houses

Attorney Seo Sung-il (Korean)

Gwangju District Court Decision 2011Gohap1659 Decided September 29, 2011

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

The defendant passed the above crosswalk at a speed of about 61 km to about 57 km in speed without stopping in front of the crosswalk, even though the traffic signal, etc. of the running direction was red, and the defendant's act of violating the signal was the direct cause of the traffic accident of this case.

Nevertheless, the court below dismissed the defendant's prosecution on the ground that the defendant's act of violating signal did not directly cause the traffic accident of this case, and that the defendant's taxi was subscribed to mutual aid under Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination:

A. Summary of the facts charged in this case

The Defendant (vehicle number 1 omitted) is a person who is engaged in the operation of a rocketing taxi.

On May 21, 201, the Defendant driven the above taxi on May 21, 201, and proceeded at a speed of about 60 km at a speed of 3 km from three-lanes, which are three-lanes of cultural power lines, toward an intersection of 4-distance in Geumnam-gu, Gwangju-gu, Geumnam-do, by driving the said taxi at a speed of 50km. In such a case, there is a signal, etc. on the front bank, the Defendant, who is engaged in driving the motor vehicle, has a duty of care to check whether there is a vehicle passing through the intersection by examining the front bank well, and to prevent accidents in advance by driving the motor vehicle safely according to the traffic signal.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so and neglected to proceed in violation of the signal, and caused the collision between the victim non-indicted 2, a victim non-indicted 1 (the non-indicted 1 of the judgment of the Supreme Court), who entered the intersection (the non-indicted 2 omitted) by driving (the 54 years old) in violation of the signal, following the right side of the (vehicle No. 2 omitted), and the front part of the 5-year-old taxi. Accordingly, the said vehicle turned to the port side, and the collision between the victim non-indicted 2, a victim Nonindicted 2, a waiting on the left part of the 1-way part of the 1st to the left part of the vehicle.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered from the victim non-indicted 1’s injury in the course of the above occupational negligence, such as culpists, which requires treatment for about two days for the number of days of Tongwons, and the victim Non-indicted 3, 4, 2, and 5 suffered from each injury, such as culatory base, tensions, and tensions, which require two weeks of treatment.

B. The judgment of the court below

The lower court acknowledged the following facts and circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated, and, in full view of this, dismissed the Defendant’s prosecution on the grounds that the Defendant’s act of violating signals did not directly cause the instant traffic accident, and that the Defendant’s taxi was subscribed to mutual aid under Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

1) As evidence consistent with the facts charged in this case, the victim non-indicted 1's statement, traffic accident report (1) (2) and traffic accident site photo, each taxi image recording device, diagnosis paper, and traffic fact confirmation, etc. According to the date and time stated in the facts charged, the defendant continued to drive a taxi without stopping the vehicle signal, etc. in front of the crosswalk prior to the stop line even though the vehicle signal, etc. was red, at the place, in spite of its driving direction, at the time and place indicated in the facts charged. (Attachment 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act provides that "motor vehicles and horses may stop immediately before the stop line, the crosswalk, and the intersection crossing: Provided, That the traffic of other vehicles and horses driving along the crosswalk beyond the stop line may not interfere with the traffic flow of the other vehicles and horses driving along the crosswalk pursuant to the new subparagraph, and it is recognized that the traffic signal, etc. of the vehicle driving along the crosswalk is cross-sectioned with the green light as stated in the facts charged and it conflicts with Non-indicted 1's vehicle.

2) On the other hand, however, the term "accident in violation of signal" under the proviso of Article 3 (2) 1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents refers to a case where the act of violation of signal constitutes the direct cause of the occurrence of traffic accident, and it does not include all the traffic accident while the traffic accident is in violation of signal.

4. In this case, the court below's finding the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and investigated: ① the defendant's taxi is proceeding at a speed of about 7 km to the intersection, and the defendant's moving route to three lanes prior to the traffic accident, at around 6 seconds, at around 02:27:14, before the accident, the defendant's moving route was changed to the three-lane road; ② the defendant's moving time was immediately prior to the stop of the crosswalk at about 61 km speed, and the defendant's moving time did not appear to have been changed to the front of the traffic accident at the speed of about 02:27:15 km at the front of the traffic accident. At the same time, the defendant's moving direction was changed to the green signal at the speed of about 1:57 km, while the defendant's moving direction was changed to the front of the accident at the speed of the victim's moving speed.

3) Therefore, the facts charged against the Defendant constitute a case where a taxi driver cannot institute a prosecution when he/she has subscribed to a mutual aid agreement under Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents. According to the records of the mutual aid agreement certificate (Investigation Record 95 pages) bound in the records, it is recognized that the above Defendant driver's above taxi joined the said mutual aid agreement. Thus, the prosecution against the Defendant is dismissed by applying Article 327 subparagraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

C. Judgment of the court below

In full view of the facts and circumstances as indicated in the judgment of the court below acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, although the defendant entered the intersection in violation of the signal, the vehicle signal, etc. in the direction of the defendant's proceeding changed from the red light to the green light before the second second of the traffic accident in this case, and the defendant's vehicle was at a point below the stop line, the victim's vehicle was at the crosswalk, and the traffic accident in this case occurred by the non-indicted 1's vehicle entering the intersection in violation of the signal signal while the vehicle was at the intersection after the defendant's vehicle entered the intersection in violation of the signal signal. Thus, it cannot be concluded that the defendant's act of violating the signal was a direct cause of the occurrence of the accident in this case. Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the prosecutor's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Jong-chul (Presiding Judge)