logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1983. 12. 27. 선고 83도2719 판결
[교통사고처리특례법위반][집31(6)형,138;공1984.2.15.(722) 290]
Main Issues

Whether the Road Traffic Act is applied to emergency motor vehicles when they intrudes on a central line, etc. or turn back a section prohibited from turning back (affirmative)

Summary of Judgment

Even in the case of emergency motor vehicles, Articles 11-2 and 14 of the Road Traffic Act shall apply to the case of motor vehicles, as in the case of motor vehicles, when an emergency motor vehicle gets into operation the installation line such as central line or revolving the prohibition section.

[Reference Provisions]

Articles 11-2, 14, 24, and 25 of the Road Traffic Act

Escopics

Defendant

upper and high-ranking persons

Defendant

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 83No3405 delivered on September 23, 1983

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the trial evidence of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below in comparison with records, the court below's decision that recognized the criminal facts in the judgment of the defendant is justifiable, and there is no error of misconception of facts or incomplete hearing due to a violation of the rules of evidence such

2. According to the provisions of Articles 24 and 25 of the Road Traffic Act, the first right of way and speed limitation of emergency motor vehicles, and the application of prohibition of passing is limited to each special exception, and there is no special exception to the prohibition of intrusion by the installed line, such as the central line, etc. as provided in Articles 11-2 and 14 of the same Act, or the exclusion of the prohibition of turning back. Therefore, even in the case of emergency motor vehicles, the emergency motor vehicles are subject to the application of Articles 11-2 and 14 of the same Act, as in the case of the following, when the emergency motor vehicles ske the installed line of the central line, etc., or turn back the speed prohibition section. Therefore, the judgment below convicting the defendant is just and there is no violation of the misapprehension of legal principles as to the privilege of emergency motor vehicles.

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

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)

arrow