In a case where a public prosecution is instituted by applying the proviso of Article 3(1) and (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and Article 268 of the Criminal Act, whether it is unlawful to render a judgment of non-guilty, which is not a judgment of dismissal of prosecution, for the benefit of a defendant, where it is not recognized that the defendant committed a crime under Article 3(1) of the same Act, unless the defendant is found that he/she committed a crime under Article 3(2) or 4(1) of the same Act (negative)

Article 3(1) and (2), and Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents; Article 268 of the Criminal Act; Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act; Article 327 subparag. 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 2012Do11431 Decided May 14, 2015 (Gong2015Sang, 826)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Cheongju District Court Decision 2013No114 decided August 22, 2013

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding the admissibility of evidence and the credibility of the statement

The court below determined that the defendant violated the signal of this case in relation to the traffic accident of this case, the defendant's legal statement of the witness non-indicted 1, the investigation report on the contents of conversation with the witness non-indicted 2, and the investigation report and the investigation report on the detection of false remarks, all of which are inadmissible, and the protocol of the victim non-indicted 3's statement in the court and investigation agency on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err in the misapprehension

2. As to the dismissal of prosecution

In a case where a public prosecution is instituted by applying the proviso to Article 3(1) and (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and Article 268 of the Criminal Act, in principle, in the event that, as a result of a trial, there is no ground prescribed in the proviso to Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and where a public prosecution cannot be instituted on the grounds of the main sentence of Article 3(2) or the main sentence of Article 4(1) of the same Act, a judgment dismissing a public prosecution shall be rendered. However, in cases where a trial on the substance of a case is already completed and it is proved that there is no reason prescribed in the proviso to Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and where it is not recognized that a defendant committed a crime under Article 3(1) of the same Act, even if there is a reason prescribed in the main sentence of Article 3(2) or the main sentence of Article 4(1) of the same Act, if the fact-finding court has pronounced a substantial judgment on the charges of violating the Act for

The court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted the defendant on the facts charged that the defendant's failure to operate a vehicle in violation of traffic signal, caused the victim to inflict an injury, such as salt, tension, etc. on the f1,090,480 won (in excess of 50,000 won) at the market price of the damaged vehicle, thereby damaging property equivalent to the 61,090,480 won (in excess of 50,000 won) at the cost of repairing the damaged vehicle, and constitutes Article 3 (1) and (2) proviso 1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and Article 151 of the Road Traffic Act.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, insofar as there is no particular evidence or circumstance that the Defendant caused the instant traffic accident by occupational negligence, other than signal violation, the lower court’s maintenance of the judgment of innocence for the benefit of the Defendant, which did not err by misapprehending the requirements of the judgment dismissing public prosecution and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, contrary to what

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)