Whether a person is liable to commit a crime against the median of the median line even if the person enters the opposite line beyond the median line to make the left or U-turn (affirmative)

In accordance with Article 12 (3) of the Road Traffic Act, vehicles and horses are required to erase the right side from the center line of the roadways, and the center line marked with yellow solid lines on the road to clearly distinguish the vehicle's passage by direction on the road along which the lanes are installed is abutting on the opposite direction to each other. Thus, the driver operating each vehicle along the opposite line is driving with trust that the vehicle in the opposite line does not go beyond the boundary line, barring special circumstances. Thus, if the vehicle in the opposite line is operated in violation of the trust of the driver of the vehicle in the opposite line intentionally going beyond the boundary line, even though there is no inevitable reason, if the vehicle in the opposite line intentionally moves beyond the boundary line, and even if the driver tried to turn to the right side or to turn to the left or to turn to the opposite direction, it cannot be exempted from the responsibility of the central crime.

Article 12(3) and Article 113 subparag. 1 of the Road Traffic Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Soh Don-ri

Seoul District Court Decision 2000No1191 delivered on April 28, 2000

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In accordance with Article 12 (3) of the Road Traffic Act, vehicles and horses are required to delete the right side from the center line of the roadway, and the center line marked with yellow solid lines on the road to clearly distinguish the passage of vehicles by direction on the road along which the lanes are installed is abutting on the lanes that are operated in opposite directions to each other. Thus, barring special circumstances, a driver operating each vehicle along the opposite lines is driving with trust that vehicles in the opposite lines do not go beyond the boundary line, barring special circumstances. Thus, if the vehicle in the opposite lines are operated in violation of the trust of the driver of the vehicle in the opposite lines intentionally going beyond the boundary line, even though there is no inevitable reason, if the motive for the operation of the course intentionally goes beyond the boundary line, the existence of liability may not vary depending on what is the motive for the operation of the vehicle in the opposite line. Thus, even if the left-hand or U-turnn was attempted to go on the left-hand line, it cannot be exempt from the responsibility of the central crime of intrusion.

In addition, such a interpretation does not change because Article 16 (1) of the Act separately prohibits crossing, U.S. or U.S. on the right side of the center line by providing that "if it is apprehended to obstruct the normal passage of pedestrians, other vehicles and horses, vehicles and horses shall not cross, walk, or backward the road."

In this case, the court below is just in holding that the defendant's act of entering the opposite lane beyond the center line of yellow-ray to turn to the left is punished as a violation of subparagraph 1 of Article 113 and Article 12 (3) of the Act, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the establishment of a violation of Article 113 of the Act.

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

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)