2015 Violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents

A person shall be appointed.

Kim Dong-dong (Lawsuits) and Park Jong-young (Trial)

Attorney Won-hee (Korean National Assembly Line)

June 18, 2015

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. Summary of the facts charged

On August 25, 2014, the Defendant driven a No. 21:30 on August 25, 2014, *** * the road front of the Marshall CD-style, which is located on the Daejeon U.S. street, by driving the motor vehicle, proceeded at a speed of about 20 - 30 KK at a speed of about the hour, toward the right side of the No. 30 K.

Since there is a center line with a yellow solid line, in such a case, the driver of the motor vehicle had a duty of care to safely proceed with the upper left and the right of the front left and the right of the motor vehicle, and to observe the tea line.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and proceeded in the opposite direction by neglecting the vehicle parked on the right side of the road in the direction of the proceeding, and overcoming the center line, the victim Kim Jong-young, who was going on the opposite direction of the course,* (51 years old) **** The front side of the left side of the front side of the motor vehicle of the Defendant.

As a result, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim, such as cinal salt, which requires approximately two weeks of medical treatment due to occupational negligence.

2. Determination

A. According to Article 13(3) of the Road Traffic Act, a driver may pass along the center or the left-hand side of the road, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (3), where it is impossible to pass through the right-hand side of the road due to destruction of the road, road works, other obstacles, etc. according to Article 13(4)2 of the same Act.

B. The term "in the event of a traffic accident" in the former part of Article 3 (2) 2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents refers to the case where a traffic accident occurred not to refer to all the traffic accidents beyond the median line, but to the case where a traffic accident occurred by breaking the median line without any inevitable reason. The term "in the event of unavoidable reasons" in this context means the case where there was no other appropriate measures to avoid the obstacles on the road, or where a driver tried to operate his/her lane in order to avoid the obstacles on the road, but there was an objective reason to criticize the driver (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do832 delivered on July 28, 1998). The term "in the case of a traffic accident" means the case where there is an objective reason that makes it impossible to criticize the driver (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do832 delivered on July 28, 1998.

C. According to the Defendant’s legal statement, traffic accident report (on-site survey report), and on-site photographs, the Defendant, while driving along the road in front of the Marshall Ro-ro, U.S. D. on the road along the opposite side of the lane, was going beyond the median line to avoid three or more vehicles which were continuously parked on the right side of the lane and again entered the lane, Kim *** A. According to the above recognition, the Defendant could not proceed without exceeding the median line due to illegal vehicles parked on the right side of the road, and thus, the Defendant could not pass through the center or the left side of the road pursuant to Article 13(4)2 of the Road Traffic Act, and there is also an inevitable reason to “influencing the median line.” Therefore, the accident described in the facts charged does not fall under the proviso of Article 3(2)2 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

D. The Defendant’s tea was covered by a comprehensive insurance, Kim * did not want to be punished by the Defendant. As such, this case’s indictment pursuant to the main text of Article 4(1) and Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents constitutes a case where the prosecution procedure is in violation of the provisions of the Act and becomes null and void. As such, the instant indictment is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparag. 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judges relocation year;