[1] The meaning of the "median crime by the central line" and "an infringement by the news report", which are the exceptional grounds for punishment under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents

[2] The case holding that an accident caused by the infringement of central lines and news reports is not caused by an inevitable reason

[1] "When the driver intrudes the median line of the road where the lane has been installed in violation of the proviso of Article 3 (2) 2 of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (amended by Act No. 4872 of Jan. 5, 1995)" refers not to the case where the point where the traffic accident occurred, but to the case where the driver intrudes over the median line without any inevitable reason, and the case where the driver causes the traffic accident. "Inevitable reason" in this context refers to the case where the driver did not take other appropriate measures to avoid the obstacles indicated on the ongoing lane or tried to drive the lane on his own, but it is inevitable for the driver to do so due to external conditions that cannot be controlled by him, and the case where the driver intrudes the median line itself due to the violation of the proviso of Article 13 (2) of the Road Traffic Act. This legal principle applies as it is to the case of reporting as provided in the proviso of Article 3 (2) 9 of the Road Traffic Act.

[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that the central line and sidewalk intrusion cannot be deemed to have been forced due to external circumstances that the driver could not control

[1] Article 3 (2) of the former Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (amended by Act No. 4872 of Jan. 5, 1995) / [2] Article 3 (2) of the former Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (amended by Act No. 4872 of Jan. 5, 1995)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 87Do2171 delivered on March 22, 198 (Gong1988, 728) Supreme Court Decision 90Do536 delivered on September 25, 1990 (Gong1990, 2217) Supreme Court Decision 91Do1783 delivered on October 11, 1991 (Gong191, 2764)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daejeon District Court Decision 95No379 delivered on May 10, 1995

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, if the defendant, who is engaged in the taxi driving service, inevitably fell under the victim's right-hand chilling part of this case's 21:50 on December 4, 1994, and caused injuries to the victim's upper right-hand chilling part of this case's vehicle's front line or the front line of this case's vehicle's front line's front line of this case's front line of this case's front line of this case's front line of this case's front line of this case's front line of this case's front line of this case's 20 weeks old line of accident's front line of this case's front line of this case's 30 meters away from the museum's 4-day off, and the defendant continued to go beyond the central 30-day line of accident's front line of accident's front line of this case's front line of accident's front line of this case's front line of this case's chill.

2. "When the driver intrudes the median line of the road where the driver was installed in violation of the proviso of Article 3 (2) 2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (amended by Act No. 4872 of Jan. 5, 1995)" refers to the case where the point where the traffic accident occurred, not to refer to all cases beyond the median line, but to the case where the driver has caused the traffic accident by breaking the median line without any inevitable reason. "An unavoidable reason" in this context means the case where the driver did not take other appropriate measures in order to avoid the obstacles indicated on the ongoing lane, or tried to drive the lane on his own, but it is inevitable for the driver to do so due to external conditions that cannot be controlled by the driver, and the Central Line itself cannot criticize the driver (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Do5361, Sep. 25, 190; Supreme Court Decision 90Do1381, Jan. 19, 199).

However, even if snow flicked on the surface, unless any abnormal driving operation, such as speed, rapid change, or emergency flick, is not possible unless it is done, it cannot be concluded that the driver is due to external conditions that make it difficult for him/her to control. According to the records, the point of accident in this case is a two-lane straight line, where the surface of the area of the accident occurred across a relatively wide range, not only the surface of the area of the accident but also the surface of the area was flick, and the point of accident is 40 km above, and the surface of the road is flick, so it is difficult to reduce the speed of the road to a level below the ordinary speed limit (see Article 15(1) and (2) of the Road Traffic Act, Article 12(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Traffic Act, and Article 12(2) or (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Traffic Act, and it cannot be seen that the driver's license of the defendant cannot be changed to the center or the center of the road.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the accident of this case does not constitute a central crime or a reported crime under the proviso of Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents. Thus, the court below erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or misunderstanding the legal principles as to the violation of the central crime or reporting, and it is obvious that such violation affected the result of the judgment, and thus, there is a reason to point this out.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daejeon District Court Panel Division for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Cho Chang-hun (Presiding Justice)