(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.1.15.선고 2015노5470 판결

The defendant's vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the "vehicle of this case") was driven by the defendant and returned the signboard pole installed at the center of the road to the opposite lane, and the victim was injured by the victim. However, since it is difficult to see that the central line is the direct cause of the accident, Article 3 (2) proviso 2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents cannot be applied, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles that recognized the defendant to violate the Act on Special Cases concerning the

2. Determination

Article 3(2) proviso 2 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents refers to cases where traffic accidents occur by breaking the median line of the road where the median line is installed without any inevitable reason. The unavoidable reason here refers to cases where: (a) the act of intrusion on the median line was done without any other rectangular measure to avoid obstacles on the median line; (b) the act of invasion on the median line itself was intended to operate his own bus due to external circumstances that make it impossible for the driver to control; and (c) all the median lines except in cases where there are such unavoidable reasons as above, except for those cases, constitute the act of breaking the median line (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Do536, Sept. 25, 199; 95Do1232, May 23, 1997). In full view of the fact that the Defendant had lawfully adopted the two-lane line and had the victim of the instant vehicle under consideration of the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the Defendant in the two-lane line.

In full view of the above legal principles as seen earlier, the Defendant cannot be deemed to constitute a case where the Defendant, while driving the instant vehicle due to unavoidable reasons, was injured by the victim. Since the Defendant’s act of breaking the central line is deemed to have directly caused the occurrence of a traffic accident, the Defendant’s violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents is established.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that recognized the defendant as violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents is just, and there is no error of misconception of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.