Whether a traffic accident caused by a driver of a motor vehicle in attempting to change course at the intersection falls under the case of operating a motor vehicle in violation of the safety signs indicating the prohibition of traffic pursuant to Article 5 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (negative)

In full view of the proviso of Article 3(2)1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Articles 14(4), 22(3)1, and 25 of the former Road Traffic Act (Amended by Act No. 11780, May 22, 2013); and Article 8(1)5 and 8(2) [Attachment 6] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, the driver of a motor vehicle cannot be deemed to be identical with the safety signs prohibiting the change of course in the intersection. Thus, if safety signs prohibiting the change of course in the intersection are not installed individually, even if the driver of a motor vehicle committed a traffic accident while attempting to change course in the intersection, it cannot be deemed as the case of operating a motor vehicle in violation of safety signs indicating the prohibition of traffic under Article 5 of the Road Traffic Act.

The proviso to Article 3(2)1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Articles 5, 14(4) (see current Article 14(5)), 22(3)1, and 25 of the former Road Traffic Act (Amended by Act No. 11780, May 22, 2013); Article 8(1)5, and 8(2) [Attachment Table 6] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act

Defendant

Defendant

Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Yoon-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014No3022 Decided February 5, 2015

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. The judgment of the court below

The lower court determined that the Defendant’s act of changing the course to the intersection constitutes “the case of driving a vehicle in violation of the direction of safety signs indicating the prohibition of passage under Article 5 of the Road Traffic Act,” as stipulated in Article 3(2)1 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, even if the Defendant’s act of changing the course to the intersection does not actually indicate the white light line within the intersection, and the Defendant’s act of driving a vehicle in violation of the direction of safety signs indicating the prohibition of passage under Article 5 of the Road Traffic Act, as well as the section where the white light lines are marked.

2. Judgment of the Supreme Court

A. Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents provides that the crime of injury caused by occupational negligence by traffic of a vehicle shall not be prosecuted against the victim’s express intention: Provided, That this shall not apply to the case falling under the proviso, and subparagraph 1 provides that “in the case of operating a vehicle in violation of signals provided for in Article 5 of the Road Traffic Act or instructions given by safety signs, such as police officers controlling traffic or directions for temporary suspension,” and Article 14(4) of the Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 11780, May 22, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that “The driver of a vehicle or horse shall not change the course of a vehicle or horse at a place where change of course is particularly prohibited by safety signs, and Article 8(1)5 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act provides that “If the driver of a vehicle or horse drives a vehicle in violation of the provisions of the proviso to Article 5 of the Road Traffic Act, it shall not be deemed that the change of course or sign of an intersection is prohibited by altering.”

B. According to the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the defendant attempted to change course within the intersection of this case where safety signs prohibiting the change of course are not installed by driving the BMW car, and he shocked the EM vehicle on the right side of the proceeding direction, and continued to shock the EM vehicle on the right side of the proceeding direction, resulting in such a chain collision, and caused injury to the victim, as stated in its reasoning, who was in order to cut off the MM vehicle on the sidewalk, due to such a chain collision.

C. Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it cannot be deemed that the instant traffic accident caused by the Defendant’s attempt to change course within the instant intersection constitutes an accident of violation of instructions indicated by safety signs under Article 3(2) proviso of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

D. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. In so doing, it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the violation of instructions with safety signs under Article 3(2)1 proviso of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation contained in the grounds

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kwon Soon-il (Presiding Justice)