Whether or not a motor vehicle which has used only headlights and has been transported as an emergency motor vehicle can be seen as an emergency motor vehicle.

A motor vehicle which uses headlights and transports an emergency sick person in need of life can be seen as an emergency motor vehicle under Article 2 subparagraph 13 of the Road Traffic Act and Article 2 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and there is no need to take measures such as continuing light.

Article 2 (13) of the Road Traffic Act, Article 2 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Traffic Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 82No5967 delivered on January 25, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

생명이 위급한 상병인을 운반중인 자동차는 도로교통법 제2조, 제13호 , 같은법 시행령 제2조 제2항 에 의하여 긴급자동차로 간주되며 위의 규정에 의한 긴급자동차는 같은법 제24조 제2항 에 의하여 같은법 제5조 의 규정에 불구하고 정지하지 아니할 수 있다고 할 것이니 이 사건에 있어서 원심이 전조등을 켜고 상병인을 운반중이던 피고인 택시를 긴급자동차로 본 조처는 정당하다. 소론은 도로교통법시행령 제3조 제2항 에 의하여 긴급자동차로 간주되려면 전조등을 켠 것으로서 긴급자동차의 표시를 다한 것으로 볼 수는 없고 더 나아가 경적을 계속하여 취명하는 등의 방법까지 취해야 한다는 것이나 독자적인 견해이어서 받아들일 수 없다.

Ultimately, the judgment of the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the method of displaying emergency motor vehicles under the Road Traffic Act, and therefore, the theory that the defendant should be convicted of the facts charged in violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents under the premise that the defendant violated Article 5 of the same Act

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)