Whether Article 32 subparag. 4 of the Road Traffic Act violates Article 32 subparag. 4 even in a case where a vehicle stops or parks at a place within 10 meters from a place where a pole, board, or line indicating the stop of a bus which is operated with compensation as well as a bus which is operated without compensation (affirmative in principle)

Article 32 subparag. 4 of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter “Prohibition Clause”) provides that “No vehicle shall stop or park at a place within ten meters from a pole, signboard, or line indicating a bus stop.” Article 156 of the Road Traffic Act provides that a person who violates Article 32 shall be punished by a fine not exceeding 20,000 won, by misdemeanor imprisonment, or by a minor fine.

The purpose of the prohibition clause is to prevent inconvenience and danger that may arise for passengers using buses by parking or stopping in the vicinity of a bus stop which is a means of public transportation, and to ensure smooth operation of buses through this, so there is no reason to treat buses with or without compensation, and in text, it merely indicates buses as bus stops, and it does not limit them to “the bus stops operated with compensation.”

In full view of the legislative purport and language of the prohibition provision, barring special circumstances, such as where a pole, board, or line indicating a bus stop is installed contrary to the will of the managing body managing the relevant road, it is reasonable to deem that the prohibition provision violates the prohibition provision even in a case where the vehicle stops or parks at a place within 10 meters from the place where a pole, board, or line indicating a bus stop which is operated without compensation, as well as a bus bus which is operated at a cost, is parked or parked.

Article 32 subparagraph 4 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 156 subparagraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Incheon District Court Decision 2015No916 decided July 15, 2015

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Incheon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 32 Subparag. 4 of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter “instant prohibition provision”) provides that no vehicle shall stop or park in the “place within 10 meters from the place where a pole, signboard, or line indicating a bus stop is installed” and Article 156 of the Road Traffic Act provides that a person who violates Article 32 shall be punished by a fine not exceeding 20,000 won, by misdemeanor imprisonment, or by a minor fine.

The purpose of the instant prohibition clause is to prevent inconvenience or danger that may arise to passengers using buses by parking or stopping at the location of a bus which is a means of public transportation, and to ensure smooth operation of buses through this, so there is no reason to treat buses with or without compensation, and in its language, it merely expresses only the term “bus for bus stop” and does not limit it to “bus for bus stop operated with compensation.”

In full view of the legislative purport and language of the prohibition provision of this case, barring special circumstances, such as where a pole, board, or line indicating a bus stop is installed contrary to the will of the managing body managing the relevant road, it is reasonable to deem the prohibition provision of this case to have violated the prohibition provision even in a case where a vehicle stops or parks at a place within 10 meters from a place where a pole, board, or line indicating a bus stop which is operated without compensation, as well as a bus bus which is operated at a cost, is located.

2. According to the records, the head of the Incheon International Airport Passenger Terminal No. 13, where the Defendant stopped (vehicle registration number omitted), the head of the Incheon International Airport Passenger Terminal No. 13, is the stop place of the free circular bus operated by the Incheon International Airport Airport Authority, and the management entity managing roads within the Incheon International Airport Area, can be known of the fact that the Incheon International Airport Authority is the Incheon International Airport Area, and the Defendant

3. Nevertheless, the court below acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case on the erroneous premise that the “broad bus stop” as referred to in the prohibition clause of this case is limited to a bus stop installed for transporting passengers for compensation under the Passenger Transport Service Act, on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the bus stop stop of the above bareboat vehicle is “broad stop” as referred to in the prohibition clause of this case. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on “broad stop” under the Road Traffic Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

4. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)