[1] The purpose of Article 6 (2) [Attachment 2] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act is that "it may be avoided bypass without impeding the traffic of other vehicles and horses that proceed with red lights in accordance with the signals"

[2] In a case where the defendant who is a taxi driver was prosecuted for violating the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents because he gets injured by shocking the victim's driver's car that was driven under the new subparagraph while bypassing the signal signal at the intersection, the case affirming the judgment below that the above accident does not constitute an accident due to the "signal violation" under Article 3 (2) 1 proviso of the same Act

[1] The structure of Article 6(2) [Attachment 2] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Public Administration and Security No. 156, Aug. 24, 2010; hereinafter “former Enforcement Rule”), and [Attachment 2] of the former Enforcement Rule shall proceed so that it does not interfere with other traffic, even in a case where the right-hand turn is made on green lights or at a place where a right-hand turn is marked on the right-hand turn, but it is explicitly provided that only if the right-hand turn is obstructed, the right-hand turn is made on green lights at the place where the right-hand turn is marked on the right-hand turn, and the purport of the former Enforcement Rule is not to prevent any other traffic flow from being interfered with the new traffic signal system in light of the changes in the traffic signal or the new left-hand turn-hand turn-hand turn in Korea without any other traffic signal.

[2] In a case where the Defendant, a taxi driver, was indicted for violating the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (amended by Act No. 10575, Apr. 12, 2011) on the ground that he/she caused an injury to the victim’s driver, by bypassing the right to red painting at the intersection, and by shocking the victim’s driver’s car going under the new subparagraph, the case affirming the judgment below that the said accident does not constitute an accident due to the “violation of signal” under the proviso of Article 3(2)1

[1] Article 6(2) [Attachment 2] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act (Amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Public Administration and Security No. 156, Aug. 24, 2010); Article 6(2) [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act / [2] Article 268 of the Criminal Act; Article 3(1), main sentence, and proviso of Article 3(2) of the former Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (Amended by Act No. 10575, Apr. 12, 2011); Article 4 of the Road Traffic Act; Article 6(2) [Attachment 2] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act (Amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Public Administration and Security No. 156, Aug. 24, 2010); Article 327 subparag. 6

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daejeon District Court Decision 2010No3070 Decided March 18, 2011

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 4 of the Road Traffic Act provides that “The types of traffic safety facilities, the method and place where traffic safety facilities are installed, and other necessary matters concerning traffic safety facilities shall be prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Public Administration and Security.” Article 6(2) [Attachment 2] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Public Administration and Security No. 156, Aug. 24, 2010; hereinafter “Enforcement Rule”) provides that “the types of signals and signals indicated by signal apparatus shall be stopped immediately before the stop line, crosswalk, and intersection: Provided, That the same shall not apply to the traffic of other vehicles and horses that are being driven pursuant to the new subparagraph, and the same shall not apply to “the types of signals and signals indicated by signal apparatus.”

The provisions of the Enforcement Rule [Attachment 2] and the Enforcement Rule [Attachment 2] shall proceed so that it may not interfere with other traffic even in cases where the left turn is made at a place where the right-hand turn is marked on green lights or a non-protective left-hand turn. However, only in cases where the left-hand turn is obstructed other traffic, it shall be explicitly provided that the person is responsible for violating the signal when other traffic is obstructed, where the right-hand turn is made to green lights at a place where the non-protective left-hand turn is marked, and where other traffic is obstructed, it shall be left-hand to the green light at the place where the non-protective left-hand turn is marked, instead of imposing the responsibility for the breach of the duty of safe driving, it shall not interfere with other traffic signals in accordance with the Enforcement Rule [Attachment 2] of the Ministry of Public Administration and Security [Attachment 2] of August 24, 2010, which shall not interfere with the duty of safe driving of motor vehicles and horses, and shall not interfere with other traffic signals.

The court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which dismissed the public prosecution of this case, even though the defendant who operated a business taxi caused the traffic accident of this case bypassing the traffic of the victim vehicle that proceeded under the new signals through the intersection, such accident does not constitute an accident due to a traffic signal violation under the proviso of Article 3 (2) 1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents. In light of the above legal principles in light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the duty to follow signals or instructions of the Road Traffic Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

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

Justices Kim Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)