[1] Whether a criminal act committed at a time and place, such as an offense for which a penalty has already been paid, has the effect of non-Punishment due to the payment of penalty (negative)

[2] Whether the exceptional ground under the proviso of Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents constitutes an element of a crime of violating Article 3(1) of the same Act, or whether the exceptional ground under the proviso of Article 3(2) is an element of a crime of violating the said

[3] Whether a person who has paid a penalty under the Road Traffic Act for a violation of signal can be punished again as an occupational injury or injury caused by such a violation under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (affirmative)

[1] According to Article 119(3) of the Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 7545 of May 31, 2005), a person who has received a notification of penalty payment and has paid the penalty shall not be punished again. In light of the contents and purport of the provisions of the same Act concerning notification and payment of penalty, where a person has received a notification of penalty from the chief of a police station for committing an offense and has paid the penalty, the act of not to be punished again shall be construed as limited to the relevant offense itself as stated in the reason for notification of penalty and the offense recognized as identical to such offense. Thus, even if the act was committed at the same place, it shall not affect the non-guilty punishment due to the payment of penalty for an offense separate from the offense.

[2] The exceptional ground for the violation of signal provisions under the proviso of Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, which allows a public prosecution against the driver who commits the crime of bodily injury by occupational negligence or gross negligence due to traffic accident, is not an element of a crime of violation of Article 3(1) of the same Act, but an element of the indictment.

[3] The act of violating signal violations falling under the exception provided by each subparagraph of the proviso of Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and the crime of violating Article 3 (1) of the same Act shall be deemed a separate crime not recognized as identical because of a substantial difference in the nature, content, and nature of the act, damage legal interests, etc. Therefore, even if a person who caused a traffic accident pays a penalty after receiving notification, it shall not be deemed as a double punishment as to the crime of causing bodily injury by occupational negligence or gross negligence under Article 3 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, even though he/she paid the penalty by taking the notification.

[1] Article 119 (3) (see current Article 164 (3)) of the Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 7545 of May 31, 2005) / [2] Article 3 (1), the main sentence of and the proviso to Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents / [3] Article 3 (1) and (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 117 (2) 2 (see current Article 162 (2) 2 of the Road Traffic Act), Article 119 (3) (see current Article 164 (3)) of the Road Traffic Act (see current Article 164 (3))

[1] [3] Supreme Court Decision 83Do1296 delivered on July 12, 1983 (Gong1983, 1220) Supreme Court Decision 2001Do849 Delivered on November 22, 2002 (Gong2003Sang, 267) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2004Do4693 Delivered on November 26, 2004 (Gong2005Sang, 61)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney An Tae-leap

Incheon District Court Decision 2006No514 Decided June 9, 2006

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to Article 119(3) of the Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 7545 of May 31, 2005), a person who has received a notification of penalty payment and has paid the penalty shall not be punished again for the same offense. In light of the contents and purport of the provisions of the same Act concerning notification and payment of penalty, where a person has received a notification of penalty from the chief of a police station for committing an offense and has paid the penalty, an act that is not to be punished again shall be limited to the relevant offense itself as stated in the reason for the notification of penalty and an offense recognized as identical to such offense. Thus, even if the act was committed at the same place, it shall not affect the non-guilty punishment due to the payment of penalty (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 83Do1296, Jul. 12, 1983; 201Do489, Nov. 28, 2002).

However, Article 3(2) proviso of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents which provides that the driver who commits a traffic accident by occupational negligence or gross negligence shall be exempted from a person who commits a traffic accident against the clearly expressed will of the victim. The exceptional grounds such as signal violations provided for in each subparagraph of Article 3(2) proviso of the same Act are not elements of a crime of violation of Article 3(1) of the same Act, but merely the grounds for the condition of indictment (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do4693, Nov. 26, 2004). In addition, Article 117(2)2 of the Road Traffic Act provides that where a person who causes a traffic accident by gross negligence is punished for a crime of violation of Article 3(1) proviso of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, if the person who commits a traffic accident by gross negligence is punished for a crime of violation of Article 3(1) proviso of the same Act, taking into account the contents and purport of the relevant Act, it shall not be deemed that the crime of violation by gross negligence and Article 3(1) of the Road Traffic Act constitutes an exception.

According to the records, the defendant's act of violating the Act on the Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents committed against the defendant at around 515-9 (vehicle number omitted) around August 26, 2005, when the defendant received a disposition of notice of penalty, violates the traffic signal around 22:05 at around 515-9, Gyeyang-gu, Incheon. On the other hand, the defendant's act of violating the Act on the Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents was committed against the defendant, at the above time and place about 30 km, driving the above city bus at the speed of the time and place about 30 km, while driving the above city bus at the speed of 515-9 at the speed of effdong-dong, Incheon, without disregarding the signal at the private-distance intersection where the signal at 515-9 was installed, and thus, the defendant's act of violating the Act on the Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents was not subject to double punishment for the reason that it did not affect the victim's act of violating the Act.

Therefore, the court below is just in finding the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case since the effect of the above penalty payment does not reach the facts charged in this case, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Hwang-sik (Presiding Justice)