[1] The meaning of "when a person gets involved in the center line of a road on which a lane is installed in violation of Article 12 (3) of the Road Traffic Act" under the former part of Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents

[2] The case holding that an accident that happens due to shock with a vehicle driven by the defendant's driver's vehicle beyond the center line cannot be deemed as an accident resulting in a central crime

[1] The term "if a traffic accident occurred in violation of Article 12 (3) of the "Road Traffic Act" in the former part of Article 3 (2) of the "Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents" refers to a case where the point where the traffic accident occurred does not go beyond the median line, but has caused a traffic accident by courseing the median line without any inevitable reason. The term "inevitable reason" refers to the case where there are objective circumstances that make it impossible to criticize the driver in the course of the median line itself, such as where there was no other appropriate action to avoid the obstacles on the road, or where the driver tried to operate his/her own lane due to external conditions that are not controlled by the driver, but the driver does not go beyond the median line in order to avoid the traffic accident. However, as long as the act of invasion of the central line directly causes a traffic accident, it is not necessary to go beyond the median line. However, if the act of invasion of the central line does not directly cause a traffic accident, it is not included in the middle line.

[2] The case holding that the accident that occurred due to shock with the vehicles that used the defendant's driver's vehicle beyond the center line cannot be deemed as the central crime of intrusion

[1] Article 3 (2) 2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents / [2] Article 3 (2) 2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents

[1] Supreme Court Decision 87Do2171 delivered on March 22, 198 (Gong1988, 728), Supreme Court Decision 90Do536 delivered on September 25, 1990 (Gong1990, 2217), Supreme Court Decision 91Do1783 delivered on October 11, 1991 (Gong1991, 2764), Supreme Court Decision 91Do1319 delivered on December 10, 1991 (Gong192, 549), Supreme Court Decision 94Do1629 delivered on September 27, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 2916), Supreme Court Decision 96Do10949 delivered on June 11, 1996 (Gong194, 2937Ha decided on September 294, 195)

Defendant

Defendant

Changwon District Court Decision 98No119 delivered on February 27, 1998

The judgment of the court below shall be reversed and the case shall be remanded to the Changwon District Court Panel Division.

1. The term "when a driver intrudes the median line of a road on which a lane has been installed in violation of Article 12 (3) of the Road Traffic Act as provided in the former part of Article 3 (2) 2 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents" means that the point where a traffic accident has occurred does not refer to all cases beyond the median line, but the situation where a traffic accident has occurred, without any inevitable reason. The term "inevitable reason" refers to the case where a driver does not take other appropriate measures to avoid obstacles on the lane, or the driver tried to operate a lane in his own way due to external conditions that are not controlled, but rather to criticize the driver itself (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Do1232, May 23, 1997; 96Do1094, Jun. 11, 196; 198Do1979, Apr. 196, 197).

2. First, we examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

In accordance with the evidence established by the court below, the court below rejected the defendant's allegation that the defendant's vehicle was in violation of the rules of evidence and there were no errors in the rules of evidence in finding that there were no errors in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to traffic accidents, since the defendant was in violation of the rules of evidence and there were no errors in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, since the defendant was in violation of the rules of evidence and there were no errors in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, since the defendant was in violation of the rules of evidence and there were no errors in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, since the defendant was in violation of the rules of evidence and there were no errors in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. However, ex officio, traffic accidents involving injury to the victim, the victim Kim Byung-kick, Kim Jae-kick, and Kim Chang-kick are caused by shock in which the defendant's vehicle suffered Kim Byung-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-kick-k

Therefore, this part of traffic accident cannot be considered as a centralized traffic accident under the former part of the proviso of Article 3(2)2 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents. According to the records, since the defendant's vehicle is recognized as being insured by the comprehensive traffic insurance, it constitutes a case where the procedure is null and void in violation of the law, and thus, the prosecution on this part should have been dismissed. However, even though the court below recognized the defendant as guilty and sentenced a single punishment together with the remaining parts in relation of ordinary competition, it constitutes an unlawful act of misunderstanding the legal principles on the comprehensive traffic offense as provided in the above Act, so the judgment of the court below cannot be reversed in its entirety.

4. Therefore, the judgment of the court 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 on the bench.

Justices Final Young-young (Presiding Justice)