The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. A summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles) at the time of the instant accident, the Defendant started to turn to the left on the two-lanes other than the one lane, and around this time, the electric signal was red. ② The above signal was changed to a green signal at the time when the Defendant’s driver’s vehicle passes over one lane, and ③ the damaged vehicle was stopped from the opposite direction to the green signal. ④ The damaged vehicle was moving to the green signal. ④ As above, the Defendant’s vehicle was in the presence of the damaged vehicle, and the accident was caused by the vehicle’s separation of the damaged vehicle.

이와 같은 피고인 차량의 진행 경로에 비추어 피고 인은 신호를 위반한 것임이 명백하고, 한편 피해자가 녹색 신호를 보고 차량을 진행한 이상 설령 피해자 차량의 속도가 피고인 차량보다 조금 빨랐더라도 피고인이 신호를 위반한 과실과 사고 발생 사이에는 상당 인과 관계가 있다.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which dismissed the prosecution of this case on the premise that the above accident was not caused by the signal violation, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the signal violation accident.

2. Determination

A. According to Articles 3(2)1 and 4(1)1 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, in cases of operating a vehicle in violation of signals displayed by a signal apparatus, a public prosecution may be instituted even in cases of purchasing an insurance or mutual aid under Article 4(1) of the same Act. Here, “in cases of operating a vehicle in violation of signals by signal apparatus” refers to cases where a signal offense directly causes a traffic accident (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do1717, Mar. 15, 2012). Meanwhile, when there is a green light at a place where a non-protective left-hand left-hand turn is displayed and it obstructs other vehicles coming from the left-hand turn, the person is liable for the violation of signals (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Do690, May 28, 196).