Whether driving of one-way driving along a road constitutes "in the case of driving in violation of instructions given by safety signs" in Article 3 (2) (proviso) 1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

Except in special circumstances, driving a vehicle by driving along a one-way road shall be limited to the case of operating a vehicle in violation of the instruction of safety signs indicating prohibition of traffic as provided in Article 3 (2) 1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

The proviso to Article 3 (2) 1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents

Defendant

Prosecutor

Busan High Court Decision 93No368 delivered on August 17, 1993

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The case is remanded to Busan High Court.

1. Summary of the facts charged in this case

On August 15, 1992, the Defendant driven a sea-wise car at around 23:15, and driven the road of one-way passing in front of the public health clinic of the mother and child in the Dong-dong of Busan at the port of Dong-dong from the jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea to the jurisdiction of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the Republic of Korea.

2. Prosecutor’s ground of appeal No. 1

The court below held that the defendant's intent to flee without providing relief is a case where it is clear that the victim was injured or it is possible to expect such accident and thus it is necessary to take emergency measures at the site. In this case, the victim was extremely minor wife to the extent that it is not necessary to view the hospital, and immediately after the accident, and the victim went beyond the hospital. The defendant was also a victim's post death after the death, which has already fell from the hospital, and thus, he did not take any particular measures. Under this factual basis, the court below held that the defendant did not have any specific measures. Under this factual basis, it is difficult to view that the defendant had an intention to escape without providing relief, even if it is clear that the victim was injured and the victim was in need of emergency measures at the site, and there is no evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

If the relevant evidence is compared to the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and it cannot be viewed that there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence in the process of the examination. Therefore, there is no reason to discuss.

3. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

The court below rejected the prosecution of this case on the ground that there is no evidence to prove that the defendant escaped, and thus, the defendant's act of causing the victim by occupational negligence constitutes Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and as part of the charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, the court can deliberate and decide on the part of the charge of violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes. The victim can recognize the fact that he did not want the punishment by mutual consent with the defendant on August 31, 192, prior to the prosecution of this case. Thus, it constitutes Article 327 subparagraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act

However, Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents provides that a driver who commits a crime of bodily injury by occupational or gross negligence by traffic of a vehicle shall not be prosecuted against the express will of the victim. It does not apply to the case where a driver drives a vehicle in violation of signals provided by Article 5 of the Road Traffic Act or instructions of safety signs indicating the prohibition of traffic or temporary suspension of traffic by signal apparatus or police officers (including the traffic patrolmen and riot policemen who assist them) under Article 5 of the Road Traffic Act or by traffic control in order to regulate traffic," and according to the evidence adopted by the court below, it can be acknowledged that the defendant driven the vehicle by driving the vehicle on one-way road as stated in the indictment at the time of committing the crime of bodily injury by occupational or gross negligence as stated in the indictment at the time of the crime of traffic accident in this case. Thus, the driver's driving of the vehicle by driving the vehicle on one-way road shall be deemed to fall under the instruction of "in the case of operating the vehicle in violation of safety signs prohibiting traffic flow" under Article 3 (2) 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Nevertheless, the court below dismissed the prosecution of this case solely for the reasons as determined by the court below. Thus, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the proviso of Article 3 (2) 1 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and it is obvious that such illegality affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, there is a reason to point this out.

4. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)