(영문) 부산지방법원 2009.9.11.선고 2009노2093 판결

The prosecutor asserts that the insurance under Article 4 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents that causes no prosecution in the event of a traffic accident involving personal injury while driving another person's vehicle means the insurance that the other person has bought in relation to his own vehicle, not the other insurance that the driver who is not the owner or his spouse has bought as the insured. Furthermore, apart from the insurance that the driver directly has bought, the insurance that the driver has bought as the driver's or his spouse does not fall under the insurance under Article 4 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, but it is erroneous in the judgment of the court below that the defendant who caused the same accident as the facts charged in this case is also the insurance under Article 4 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Judgment

A. Summary of the facts charged

On February 24, 2009, the Defendant: (a) was a driver of the truck truck in Busan 80 E-Ma, and around 12:50 on February 24, 2009, on the street in front of the extreme motor vehicle drive in Busan Jung-gu, Busan, a water market, and on the part of the Defendant’s front-hand part of the driver’s vehicle, the Defendant was negligent in failing to perform his duty of care to check whether there is a vehicle crossinging with the signal, and due to the negligence of failing to perform his duty of care to check whether or not there is a vehicle crossinging the signal, and thereby, caused injury to the Defendant’s front-hand part of the driver’s vehicle in need of treatment for about 10 weeks right-hand and non-harm.

B. Judgment of the court below

(1) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the trial court, the following facts are acknowledged. (A) The cargo vehicle of Busan 80 EM, a vehicle operated by the defendant at the time of the instant case, is owned by B1, and the insured was a vehicle registered with the Hyundai Maritime Fire Insurance Co., Ltd., with limited driving agreement with the insured as B1.

(B) At the time of the instant case, B2, the Defendant’s wife, as the Defendant’s wife, subscribed to the car insurance of the Korean Commercial Non-Life Insurance Co., Ltd. with the compensation of the injury, such as B2, 30 years of age or older under the Non-Life Compensation Guarantee Act (the amount stipulated in the Enforcement Decree of the Automobile Accident Compensation Guarantee Act), Large Compensation II (U.S.), Large Compensation II (U.S.), Large Compensation (50 million won), Non-Life Compensation (Death 30 million, Injury 15 million won), and Non-Life Compensation (P. 20 million won).

(다) B2가 가입한 자동차 보험은 ‘무보험자동차에 의한 상해﹐ 가입자에 대하여는 ‘다른 자동차 운전담보 특별약관'이 자동적으로 적용되는데, 그 내용은 피보험자(피보험자의 배우자도 해당)가 다른 자동차를 운전하는 도중 생긴 대인사고나 대물사고로 인하여 법률상 손해배상 책임을 짐으로써 손해를 입은 때에는 피보험자가 운전한 다른 자동차를 보통약관의 '대인배상IⅡ' 등에서 피보험자동차로 간주하여 보험회사로부터 보상받을 수 있는 보험이다.

(2) Determination

(A) Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents provides that in a case where the "motor vehicle causing traffic accidents" is covered by insurance or mutual aid pursuant to the provisions of Articles 4 and 126 through 128 of the Insurance Business Act, Article 8 of the Land Transport Promotion Act, or Article 51 of the Trucking Transport Business Act, the driver of the motor vehicle who committed the crime as provided in the main sentence of Article 3(2) of the Act shall not be prosecuted. The purpose of this Act is to improve the convenience of people's lives by introducing an insurance system related to the operation of the motor vehicle and inducing the driver to subscribe to it, thereby ensuring the prompt and reliable compensation for damages caused by traffic accidents, and by exempting the driver who caused the traffic accident from criminal punishment, removing the complicated legal subdivision and side effects caused by the traffic accident in advance, and preventing the mass production of the previous offenders.

(B) Meanwhile, Article 4 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents provides that "in the case of traffic accidents, the term "insurance or mutual aid" means an insurance or mutual aid which provides that "in the case of an insurance company under the Insurance Business Act or a mutual aid business operator under the Land Transport Promotion Act or the Trucking Transport Business Act, the full amount of ordinary expenses shall be paid to the insured or mutual aid association members in lieu of the insured or mutual aid association members in accordance with the terms and conditions of insurance or the terms and conditions of mutual aid for compensation for damages between the victim and the insured or mutual aid association members in lieu of the insured or mutual aid association members, the full amount of ordinary expenses shall be paid to the victims in advance in accordance with the terms and conditions of insurance or mutual aid for other damages, and ultimately, the term of special provisions shall be applied, "whether or not the insured or mutual aid association members compensate for the full amount of damages due to traffic accidents caused by the insured or mutual aid association members in the name of final judgment or other similar debt." In other words, if the insured's rights guaranteed in accordance with the contents of insurance, there is no reason to limit the type of the Special Provision.

(C) In light of the purpose of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and the legislative intent of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and the interpretation of the provisions of Article 4(2), if the right to prompt and accurate compensation for the total amount of damages is granted to the victim in the application of special provisions under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, it shall be deemed that there is no reason to change the effect of the accident vehicle's ordinary comprehensive vehicle insurance policy or the effect of the accident driver's insurance policy related to the operation of the vehicle, whether the effect of the accident vehicle's automobile insurance policy and the effect of the accident driver's insurance policy related to the operation of the

(D) Therefore, the term "the case of being covered by insurance or mutual aid (hereinafter collectively referred to as "insurance") subject to criminal punishment under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents" includes not only the case where 'motor vehicle causing traffic accidents' is covered by the above insurance, but also the case where 'the driver of the relevant motor vehicle' has the right to prompt and accurate compensation for the total amount of damages for traffic accidents as provided by Article 4 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do2092, Jun. 12, 2008) but also the case where the motor vehicle that caused traffic accidents is insured and the driver of the relevant motor vehicle is also insured related to the operation of the motor vehicle, even if each insurance is not provided to the victim with the right to prompt and accurate compensation for the total amount of damages for traffic accidents as provided by Article 4 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

(E) In this case, in accordance with the "Special Terms and Conditions for Motor Vehicle Operation Insurance Co., Ltd.'s General Business Accident Insurance Co., Ltd.'s subscription, if the defendant suffered damage due to the personal accident that occurred while driving the motor vehicle of this case, the liability for damages corresponding to the "Special Clause for Motor Vehicle Operation Insurance Co., Ltd." is guaranteed, and the liability for damages corresponding to the "Special Clause for Personal Compensation I," which is not guaranteed from the insurance, is guaranteed by the insurance of the modern Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd.'s subscription to the 1 ton cargo of Busan 80ma, the motor vehicle of which the defendant was driving. In other words, since the insurance of the motor vehicle of which the defendant was driving and the total amount of the compensation for damage suffered by the victim B by the insurance purchased by the defendant in connection with the operation of the motor vehicle of this case is guaranteed, this case constitutes a case provided for in

(f) If so, the prosecution of this case constitutes a case where the prosecution procedure is invalid because it violates the provisions of law, and thus, the prosecution is dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The judgment of this court

In a thorough examination of the records of this case, the court below's dismissal of the prosecution of this case based on the above judgment is just and acceptable, and it does not seem that there is an error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as the prosecutor pointed out in the judgment below.

Therefore, prosecutor's argument is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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

Judges

The presiding judge, judge and senior judge;

Judges Geman-type

Judges Lower Efficiencies