[1] The case reversing the judgment of the court below which acquitted the driver on the ground that there was no causal relationship, in case where the driver died because the driver parked a cargo vehicle without using lights or sidelights on the second line at night without using lights or sidelights on the second line

[2] Whether the act of impeding traffic by parking on a road constitutes Article 47 subparagraph 3 of the Road Act (negative)

[1] The case reversing the judgment of the court below which acquitted the driver on the ground that there was no causal relationship between the act of parking and the accident, in case where the driver died because the driver parked the cargo without using the breadth, etc. on the bend road of the second line at night without using the breadth, etc. on the road

[2] In light of the legislative intent of the Road Act and the legislative form of Article 47 of the Road Act, the act under Article 47 subparagraph 3 of the Road Act refers to the act that damages a road under Article 47 subparagraph 1 and subparagraph 2 of the same Article or damages a road to the same extent as the act of piling earth and rocks, bamboos and trees, or other obstacles on the road, and the act that obstructs the road management and traffic by such parking on such road constitutes an act subject to punishment under Article 113 subparagraph 3 and Article 30 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 10 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Act, and it cannot be deemed that the act that damages a road under Article 47 subparagraph 1 and 2 of the Road Act, or damages a road or damages soil and stones, bamboo and trees, or other obstacles on the road, and that it constitutes an act that obstructs the road management and traffic to the extent that it can be seen as falling under subparagraph 3 of the same Article.

[1] Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Articles 30 and 32(1) of the Road Traffic Act, Articles 10(1)3 and 10(2) and 13(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Traffic Act / [2] Article 47 of the Road Act, Article 30 and 113(3) of the Road Traffic Act, Article 10(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Traffic Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 90Meu8760 delivered on November 9, 1990 (Gong1991, 41) Supreme Court Decision 91Da14291 delivered on July 9, 1991 (Gong1991, 2132) Supreme Court Decision 92Da6112 delivered on May 12, 1992 (Gong192, 1850)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daegu District Court Decision 95No2829 delivered on July 11, 1996

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Summary of the facts charged in this case

The summary of the facts charged in this case is that the defendant parked the above vehicle on the Do road No. 920 in front of the Yeong-gun, Sungdong-gun, Sungdong-gun on March 27, 1995, and around 0:0:0, the defendant parked the vehicle on the Do road No. 920 in front of the Yeong-gun, Sungdong-gun. At night and its location at night, in a white line, since it is a two-way road with a lane with a light, it shall not park a vehicle because it is a serious eromatic point. If a vehicle is parked a vehicle, it shall not park a vehicle by installing safety signs or installing safety signs or taking safety measures on the bombs, etc., without any negligence in the course of the duty of care to take safety measures on the left side of the above vehicle, and the victim's vehicle's vehicle's vehicle's vehicle's vehicle's vehicle's vehicle's vehicle's vehicle's vehicle's vehicle's vehicle's vehicle's side without a collision.

2. Summary of the judgment below

The court below maintained the judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted the defendant on the ground that all the facts charged against the defendant constitutes a case where there is no proof of criminal facts. The reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below are as follows.

According to the evidence of the trial, the defendant's act of parking the cargo on a bend and bend road as stated in the facts charged does not turn on the lights or widths of the road while parking the cargo on the left side of the road, and it is parked on the vehicular road so that the front and rear wheels can fall 20cc away from the main road. The victim's act of driving the vehicle on his front and rear side of the road, which caused the death of the cement block loaded on the road after shocking the front and rear of the above cargo in the charges, but the point where the defendant parked the above cargo can be seen as not impeding the passage of the vehicle due to the stopping of the vehicle, and the victim's act of parking the vehicle on the front and rear side of the road at the time of the accident is not likely to interfere with the above situation of the accident, and it is difficult for the victim to view it as a parking lot of the road at the time of the accident, and it is also difficult to view it as a parking lot of the road at the time of the accident.

3. Judgment of party members

A. As to the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents

Article 30 of the Road Traffic Act provides that "the matters necessary for the method and time limitation of stopping or parking of all vehicles on the road, or the prohibition, etc. of stopping or parking on the road parking lot shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree"; Article 10 (1) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act providing the method and time of stopping and parking on the road pursuant to the provisions of Article 30 of the same Act provides that "All vehicles shall, when they intend to park on the road, follow the place, time and method of parking as determined by the Commissioner of the Local Police Agency"; the main sentence of Article 30 (2) of the same Act provides that "if they intend to make a stop and parking under the provisions of paragraph (1), they shall not obstruct other traffic"; Article 32 (1) of the same Act and Article 13 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that, when they make a stop or parking on the road, they shall be punished pursuant to the provisions of Article 30 (1) of the same Act and Article 13 (3) of the same Act including Article 130 of the same Act.

Meanwhile, according to the statement of the fact-finding report on the preparation of the judicial police assistant employed by the first instance court maintained by the court below, the statement of the defendant at the first instance court and the court below at the court below, and the testimony of the witness Kim Gyeong-ro, etc., the point where the defendant parked the above cargo vehicle is the straight line, and the road is the bend road of the road where the straight line is changed to the left side, and the first line road is expanded to the second line, and the first line road is the first line road. The accident site is the road, the accident site is the road is just the second line, the fourth side of the accident site is the dry field, the second line is the road side of the opposite line, and the front lighting facility is only the road installed adjacent to the opposite side of the opposite side of the opposite line 20 meters away from the point of the accident, and only one another street is installed adjacent to the road side of the road farm side which is far away from the road. The above cargo vehicle is not clearly distinguishable from the front side of the above two-way road.

The court of first instance maintained by the court below acknowledged that there was no difficulty in distinguishing the obstacles from the former at the time of the accident, since the street etc. was turned on the right side of the road where the above cargo was parked at the time of the accident, and another street etc. was turned on at the time of the accident, and there was no difficulty in distinguishing the obstacles from the former. The fact-finding at the court of first instance is hard to accept as follows: although there was each statement of the defendant and each statement of the suspect examination prepared by the judicial police assistant at the time of the accident that there was no difficulty in distinguishing the obstacles from the former; however, there is no evidence to acknowledge this differently from the defendant's unilateral vindication; there is 00:0 with the time of the accident; there is only farmland, or 4:0 with the road side at the time of the accident, and the street etc. which is located at a distance of not less than 20 meters from the point of accident, etc. were turned on the only lighting facility around the location where the accident occurred.

In addition, the first instance court, maintained by the court below, judged that the above parking of the defendant was part of the space where the above cargo was parked on the road, and therefore, it cannot be said that the above parking of the defendant did not interfere with normal road traffic. However, in light of the fact that the point where the defendant parked the above cargo is considerably bending road toward the left side and the first-way road begins extensively on the second-way road, it cannot be concluded that the parking of the above cargo on the part of the above second-way road does not interfere with road traffic. Thus, the first instance court's judgment also cannot be accepted.

Therefore, even though the place where the accident in this case occurred is not a place where parking is prohibited pursuant to the relevant laws and regulations, the defendant, who parks a motor vehicle at the edge of the road at night, has the tail lights and sidelights so that the driver of another motor vehicle can easily identify the parking, and there is a statutory obligation to park the motor vehicle so that it does not interfere with other traffic. In light of the road condition of the above point of accident, the victim was driving the motor vehicle on the right side of the road in light of the road condition of the above point of accident, while driving the motor vehicle on the right side of the road at the time of the accident, and driving the motor vehicle on the second line of the point where the first line started so wide as the first line became the second line, and without finding the cargo in this case, it can be deemed that the above cargo loaded on the right side of the above deceased's left side side of the cargo in this case without any further detailed deliberation as to whether it was difficult to identify the obstacles of the front line.

Nevertheless, without properly reviewing the above points, the court below maintained the first instance court which acquitted the defendant of the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents on the ground that even if the defendant did not turn on the tail lights and the sidelights in parking on the roadway at night, such act cannot be deemed as having causation with the accident of this case. Thus, the court below erred in violation of the rules of evidence and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The grounds for appeal pointing this out are with merit.

B. As to the violation of the Road Act

The Road Act aims to contribute to the development of traffic and the enhancement of public welfare by providing for matters concerning the designation, approval, management, facility standards, preservation and expenses of routes of roads with respect to roads (Article 1 of the same Act), Article 47 of the same Act provides that no person shall carry out any of the following acts with respect to roads under subparagraph 1, subparagraph 2, and subparagraph 3 of the same Article provides that "any of acts damaging roads" shall be listed in subparagraph 1, and "an act piling earth and rocks, bamboo, trees or other obstacles on roads", and at the same time, "an act impeding road structure or traffic" shall be listed in subparagraph 3, and a person who violates the provisions of Article 47 of the same Act shall be punished under subparagraph 5 of Article 82 of the same Act as Article 82 of the same Act:

In light of the legislative intent of the above Road Act and the legislative form of Article 47 of the same Act, the act under Article 47 subparagraph 3 of the same Act refers to the act that damages the roads as stipulated in subparagraphs 1 and 2 of the same Article, or causes obstruction to road management and traffic to the extent that it can be the same as the act of piling up soil and rocks, bamboo and trees or other obstacles on the roads. The defendant's violation of the Road Act is a second line road of the Do where the defendant was placed in a white line at night, where the defendant parked at the port of the accident of this case, which is the point of the port of the accident of this case. If the defendant was parked at the point of the accident of this case, the safety signs are installed or the tail or the width of the truck of the defendant's cargo of this case without taking any measures, and the act that causes obstruction to traffic on the roads as stated in Articles 113 subparagraph 3 and 30 of the Road Act and the act that causes obstruction to traffic on the roads as stated in Article 47 (2) of the Road Act.

In the same purport, the first instance court maintained by the court below that the violation of the Road Act among the facts charged in this case constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles like the theory of lawsuit. The argument is without merit.

4. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below on the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents is not exempt from reversal. Thus, the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and the violation of the Road Act should be judged again as to whether or not not guilty of the part on the violation of the Road Act should be sentenced separately in the text, which is the relation with the commercial light agreement, which is the one of the disposition. Accordingly, the part on the violation of the Road Act

Therefore, all of the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)