2010Do16752 Violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents

○ ○

Residential Gyeongsan City

Reference domicile Daegu Daegu

Prosecutor

Daegu District Court Decision 2010No2388 Decided November 23, 2010

May 13, 2011

The judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance are reversed.

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The court below held that it is difficult to believe that the police statements Mae-U.S. and statements in the court of first instance, which correspond to the fact that the Defendant violated the signal, were involved in the instant traffic accident, are hard to find on the grounds of its stated reasoning, and the remaining evidence alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence and the principle of free evaluation of evidence against the rules of evidence.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The court below held that there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents that the defendant caused the victim to suffer salt and tension with a view to treating the victim for two weeks by negligence in violation of the signal, and held that there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and held the defendant not guilty by applying the latter part of Article 325

According to the records, this case is a traffic accident causing injury to a person by driving a vehicle in violation of the signal, and where a public prosecution is instituted on the grounds of Article 3(1) and the proviso of Article 3(2)1 of the former Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (amended by Act No. 941 of Jan. 25, 2010; hereinafter the same). However, as seen above, as a result of the deliberation in the trial proceedings, it is revealed that there was no fact that the defendant operated a vehicle in violation of the signal. Meanwhile, the vehicle operated by the defendant at the time of the traffic accident in this case was subscribed to a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance under the main sentence of Article 4(1) of the former Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (amended by Act No. 9941 of Jan. 25, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply). Accordingly, this case is

Therefore, even if the court below did not prove that the instant traffic accident was caused by the Defendant’s violation of the signal, it should have sentenced the dismissal of prosecution on the ground of the defects in the litigation conditions pursuant to the provisions of Article 327 of the Criminal Procedure Act, not immediately acquitted. (See Supreme Court Decisions 9451818, Oct. 14, 1994; 2004Do4693, Nov. 26, 2004, etc.).

Nevertheless, the court below reversed the judgment of the court of first instance which convicted the defendant of the facts charged in this case on the grounds that there is no evidence to acknowledge the defendant's violation of signal, and sentenced the defendant not guilty, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as above, which affected the conclusion

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, but this case is deemed sufficient for this court to render a judgment based on the records of trial and the evidence examined up to the original trial, and thus, it is directly decided in accordance with Article 396

The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant and the summary of the facts charged of this case against the defendant are as shown in the judgment of the court below. Since the judgment of the court of first instance which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by mistake of facts against the rules of evidence, the ground for appeal pointing this out is with merit, and the indictment of this case constitutes a case where the procedure is invalid in violation of the provisions of law as seen earlier, and thus, the prosecution of this case against the defendant is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 2

Justices Lee In-bok

Justices Lee Hong-hoon

Justices Kim Nung-hwan

Justices Min Il-young