[1] The meaning of Article 3 (2) 10 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents

[2] The case holding that the case does not constitute driving a vehicle in violation of the duty under Article 3 (2) proviso 10 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, in case where the victim was killed and injured as a result of starting from the vehicle without confirming the victim's getting off from the vehicle while on board the vehicle

[1] Article 3 (2) (proviso) 10 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents stipulates that "in the case of operating a vehicle in violation of the duty to prevent the falling of passengers under Article 35 (2) of the Road Traffic Act" shall be "passenger," and Article 35 (2) of the Road Traffic Act shall also provide that "the driver of any motor vehicle shall take necessary measures such as opening the door accurately so as to prevent any person on board or getting out of the motor vehicle from falling." In light of the fact that Article 3 (2) (proviso) (10) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents provides that "the driver of any motor vehicle shall take necessary measures such as opening the door in order to ensure that any person on board or getting out of the motor vehicle

[2] The case holding that the case does not constitute driving a vehicle in violation of the duty under the proviso of Article 3 (2) 10 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, in case where the victim was crashed and injured as a result of starting from the vehicle without confirming the victim's getting off from the vehicle while on board the vehicle

[1] Article 3(2)10 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 35(2) of the Road Traffic Act / [2] Article 3(2)10 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 35(2) of the Road Traffic Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Do3266 delivered on June 13, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2100)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Suwon District Court Decision 99No7 delivered on July 29, 1999

The appeal is dismissed.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

In light of the proviso of Article 3(2)10 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents stipulates that "in the case of operating a vehicle in violation of the duty to prevent the fall of passengers under Article 35(2) of the Road Traffic Act", the object of the provision is "passenger", and Article 35(2) of the Road Traffic Act also provides that "the driver of any motor vehicle shall take necessary measures such as opening the door accurately so that the person on board or getting on or off the motor vehicle does not fall," the driver of any motor vehicle who is engaged in the transportation of the person, regardless of whether it is the main or incidental obligation, shall be deemed as the obligation of the driver of any motor vehicle for transportation of the person."

According to the records, the defendant, as a driver of the 15t cargo vehicle, started without confirming that the victim Kim Jong-ri, who was on the steel loaded in the 15t cargo vehicle, was taken off from the 16th vehicle, thereby falling the victim and resulting in an injury of 16 weeks in the 16th vehicle. If there are such circumstances, such an accident does not constitute an accident by violating the duty under Article 3(2) proviso of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

The decision of the court below to the same purport is correct and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

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

Justices Seo Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)