Scope of the proviso to Article 3 (2) 2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents

The proviso of Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents shall not apply to cases where the other party causes an accident at the point beyond the center line to avoid a victim who crosses the road without permission.

Article 268 of the Criminal Act; Article 327 of the Criminal Procedure Act; Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents

Defendant

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case

On January 25, 1984, a person driving a cab belonging to the defendant Gunsan-si (vehicle number omitted)-si. Around 04:30 on January 25, 1984, a person driving the above vehicle and was going to go ahead of the house of non-indicted 1 located in the front of the Si speed from the area of the military airfield to the area of the military airfield located in the area of the Gunsan-si, and the front of the house of non-indicted 1 located in the front of the Gu, the front of the front of the Gun-si located in the area of the Gunsan-dong-si, U.S., and in this case, the person working on the driving service has a duty of care to reduce speed and to take the front of the road well into consideration the front of the road and to ensure safe operation by neglecting the duty of care to drive the central line with the left side of the road at the speed of the front of the road. However, the person who left the front of the front of the road at night.

2. In light of the foregoing facts charged, the fact that the defendant, like the above facts charged, caused the shock and injury of the victim by driving a taxi on his own, is the basis for the defendant's own discretion. However, according to Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, the crime of injury by occupational negligence shall not be prosecuted against the victim's express intent. However, the crime of injury by occupational negligence is excluded in the case where the crime is committed due to the act falling under any of the following subparagraphs, and subparagraph 2 of the proviso provides the central crime. The purpose of the provision is to interpret that the central crime refers to the case where the central crime is caused by an accident, that is, the case where a substantial relation exists between the central crime and the accident.

3. Therefore, comprehensively taking account of the circumstances and the present situation of the accident, the statements made by the Defendant and Nonindicted 2 of the witness Nonindicted Party 2 in this Court and in the investigative agency, and the actual investigation report prepared by the judicial police assistant and the investigation report (37 of the investigation records) as follows:

A. The instant accident site is a flat road of approximately 6.6 meters wide finite finites sealed by the first line from the Simsan to the U.S. Air Force flightr, and the center line is marked with yellow solid lines. On the right side of the road (based on the Defendant’s standard that was proceeding to the airfield inside the Simsan city), signboards and dangerous signs are installed on the right side of the road. At the time of the instant accident, the temperature was 5 degrees 2 minutes below zero and about 2.5 centimeters in snow, and it is not possible to distinguish the lanes into the land;

B. At the time of the instant accident, the Defendant started crossing the said road on the right side of the road, following a speed of about 40 kilometers at the 40 kilometers from the surface of the airfield (vehicle number omitted) at the Gunsan-si, the Defendant discovered that there are two persons, including the victim, on the right side of the road near the accident site, and changed and proceeded with the course to avoid the said disasters. However, around the time when the Defendant moved about about 7 meters from the said victim, the said victim started crossing the said road on the left side of the road. While the Defendant operated the Hand to the left side of the road, the Defendant might find the fact that the vehicle might be pushed back in the future by shocking the said victim at a point near the central line of the said road, and there is no data different from this.

In light of the above facts, even if the central line is installed objectively, if it is impossible to distinguish the central line due to snow as in this case, as in the case, it would be so unreasonable to require the driver of the vehicle to comply with the virtual tea set up in its machine speed, as in the case where it is impossible to distinguish the central line by snow. Thus, it cannot be said that there is a duty to comply with the tea in this case.

Even if a person has a duty to give a back back a family white boat and has a duty to do so to a vehicle driver, the person cannot be held liable for the breach of the vehicle, even in cases where the central line is inevitable to avoid a victim crossing the road, as shown in the preceding opinion (if not, it would be the level of demanding the vehicle driver to go against the person or other obstacles by keeping the vehicle out of the person or other obstacles.)

4. If so, the defendant cannot be held responsible for the violation of the central line as well as can not be deemed to have a substantial relationship between the central crime and the accident in this case. Thus, the accident in this case constitutes the crime of non-compliance with the so-called "non-compliance with the intention" in accordance with the main sentence of Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

However, according to the records, it is clear that the victim did not wish to punish the defendant from the beginning, so the facts charged in this case comes to the time when the prosecution procedure becomes null and void in violation of the provisions of the law.

5. Therefore, the prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Kim Nung-hwan