The meaning of the case where the center line of the road on which a vehicle line under Article 3 (2) 2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents is installed is invaded.

Article 13 (2) of the Road Traffic Act, which is an exception to the special exception to punishment under the main sentence of Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, refers to the case where traffic accidents occur in violation of the provisions of Article 13 (2) 2 of the Road Traffic Act, not to refer to the case where the point where traffic accidents occur in excess of the center line, but to the case where traffic accidents occur due to the continuous operation of sediment by the center line, or where traffic accidents occur due to the continuous operation of sediment even though there is no unavoidable reason, even if there is no continuous operation of sediment, so it does not constitute an exception to the above special exception.

Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 13(2) of the Road Traffic Act

Supreme Court Decision 84Do193 Decided March 27, 1984; 84Do2134 Decided November 27, 1984; 84Do2651 Decided March 12, 1985; 84Do2651 Decided April 23, 1985; 85Do329 Decided September 10, 1985; 85Do1407 Decided March 11, 1986; 86Do566 Decided

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daegu District Court Decision 85No1497 delivered on October 24, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

In light of the legislative intent of Article 3 (2) 2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, which is an exception to the punishment of the main sentence of Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, where the center line is installed in violation of the provisions of Article 13 (2) of the Road Traffic Act, it is reasonable to say that the point where traffic accidents occurred is caused by the continuous sed operation of the center line, or the continuous sed operation was caused by the continuous sed operation of the center, it is reasonable to say that the situation at the time of operation means the situation where traffic accidents occurred by the center line even though there is no inevitable reason. Therefore, even if there is no urgent situation at the time of operation, such as the situation where the center line cannot be invaded, and if there is no other situation where the traffic accident occurred at the point beyond the center line, it does not constitute an exception to the above special punishment (see Supreme Court Decision 84Do193, Mar. 27, 198; 208Do418385, Apr. 1685, 1985; 2000

According to the facts established by the court below, although the point of occurrence of the traffic accident of this case is going beyond the median line, the defendant's vehicle was driven at a speed of about 70 kilometers a speed of 20 kilometers a speed of the road at a speed of 50 kilometers a speed, and it was found late immediately before the collision between the driver's vehicle and the driver's vehicle was parked at a speed of 5Da3684 on the right side, and the driver's vehicle was parked at a speed of 20 meters a speed of 5Da3684, and the driver's vehicle was stopped at the right side, and the driver's vehicle was stopped at the right side of the above stop at the right side, and the defendant's vehicle did not fall under the first 20-day driver's first 20-day driver's first 20-day driver's first 20-day driver's first 20-day driver's first 20-day driver's first 20-day driver's second son.

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

Justices Yoon Yoon-tae (Presiding Justice)