beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant invadeds the central line by making an internship at a point outside the permitted section of U.S., and that the defendant's negligence by the defendant's central line was the direct cause of the traffic accident of this case. However, the court below dismissed the public action of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to Article 3 (2) proviso of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, which affected the conclusion
2. Determination
A. "When a traffic accident is committed in violation of Article 13(3) of the Road Traffic Act" in the former part of Article 3(2)2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents refers to a case where the traffic accident is caused by the act of driving a motor vehicle by breaking the center line of the road in light of the legislative intent of the above Act, that is, the act of intrusion by the center line directly caused the occurrence of the traffic accident. Therefore, as long as the act of intrusion by the center line directly caused the traffic accident, the place of the accident must be the opposite line beyond the center line.
Even if the central crime is not the direct cause of the occurrence of a traffic accident, if the traffic accident occurs while the central crime is in operation, it should not be included in all.
B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Do1319, Dec. 10, 1991).
Based on these legal principles, the court below, while explaining the reasons in detail on the part of the "Decision 2.2. Judgment", stated that the vehicle of the defendant was waiting for a U-turn, and around that, there was a center line of the white domin line with the permissible section for U-turns, there was a crosswalk installed in the front direction of the vehicle of the defendant, and there was a center line of the yellow dominton line between the crosswalk and the permissible section for U-turns, and the defendant was installed with the center line between the crosswalk and the permissible section for U-turns.