2014 Violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents

Han ○

Whole leather (prosecutions) and type of trial (trials)

Attorney Lee In-hee (Korean National Assembly Line)

August 8, 2014

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. Summary of the facts charged

On November 24, 2013: 14:05, the Defendant driven a self-owned taxi vehicle**** the road in front of the Sungdong-dong CUamam store in Daejeon-dong, Daejeon, along the two-lanes from Daejeon to the red high-speed distance. The Defendant had a duty of care to drive a person who is engaged in driving on a crosswalk where signal, etc. is installed and has a duty of care to drive it safely in accordance with good faith.

On the other hand, the Defendant neglected this and neglected to proceed with a stop signal while driving on the road, and caused a collision between the front side of the driver's vehicle and the wheels of the perpetrator's driver's driver's gate and the front side of the victim's woo, who was up to the right side of the road, even though the walking signal was to be a stop signal from the left side of the driving direction, and suffered approximately 12 weeks of the victim's wooh and the exit of the road.

2. Determination

A. Facts of recognition based on records

1) Location and condition of signal lights

At the time of the accident, both the signal apparatus for the vehicle in the intersection and the signal apparatus for pedestrians in the crosswalks were installed at the intersection of the defendant's direction, and only the pedestrian signal was installed at the crosswalks without a separate vehicle signal.

2) Circumstances of the accident

The two lanes, which are the location of the accident, are straight lines and left lanes, the two lanes are straight lines and right lanes, and the one lane was set from the stop line of the crosswalk to the stop signal, and the six prices for the vehicle parked and stopped without permission on the right side of the two lanes, and the defendant delayed a considerable speed in order to pass the vehicle stopped and stopped on the first lane to the vehicle stopped and stopped on the second lane without permission.

3) The progress of Defendant vehicle

피고인은 당일 14 : 04 : 58경 횡단보도의 정지선으로부터 1차로에 차량 4대가 정차되어 있는 곳에 도착하기 전에 왼손으로 조향장치 왼쪽에 있는 방향지시등을 아래쪽에서 위 쪽으로 올려 우회전을 위한 방향지시등을 작동하였고 , 그 순간부터 방향지시등이 깜빡 이는 소리가 났으며 , 피해자는 14 : 05 : 10경 횡단보도의 보행자용 신호기가 적색 신호임 에도 이를 무시한 채 뛰어서 건너다가 사고가 발생하였다 .

B. Whether a signal has been violated

The prosecutor prosecuted the defendant on the premise that the defendant should directly take part in the traffic signal violation. However, as seen earlier, the defendant served the direction direction, etc. for the right of way at the two-lanes where the right of way can be right of way, and thus, the facts alleged by the prosecutor are without merit.

However, it is deemed that the defendant's failure to stop immediately before the crosswalk constitutes a violation of signal.

If a vehicle signal apparatus is not installed on a crosswalk, the signal apparatus for the vehicle installed at the intersection is not in the nature of controlling the intersection and the crosswalk, but in case where the signal apparatus for pedestrians in the crosswalk is "red red," the crosswalk is not in the nature of the crosswalk. In such a case, there is no legal obligation to stop immediately before the crosswalk. Therefore, it is sufficient that a vehicle that intends to make a right-hand side will make a right-hand side to the extent that it does not interfere with the traffic of other vehicles and horses passing along the crosswalk and passing along the intersection to the extent that it does not interfere with the traffic of other vehicles and horses passing along the intersection (see Supreme Court Decisions 197Do1835, Oct. 10, 197; 2009Do822, Jul. 28, 2011, etc.).

Furthermore, even if the Defendant violated the bypass method in accordance with the red signal light prescribed by the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act (Attached Table 2), it is merely a violation of the duty of safe driving that should not interfere with the traffic of other vehicles and horses, and thus, it cannot be held liable for violating the signal, on the ground that he interfered with the traffic of other vehicles and horses (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do3970, Jul. 28, 201).

Therefore, the Defendant is not liable for the violation of the signals against the instant accident.

C. Public prosecution rejection portion

As long as the defendant cannot be found liable for violation of signal, this case is an offense falling under Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and Article 268 of the Criminal Act, and where a vehicle causing a traffic accident is subscribed to the mutual aid association pursuant to Article 4(1) and the main sentence of Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, a public prosecution cannot be instituted. Since a taxi operated by the defendant is obvious in the record that he/she was admitted to the taxi mutual aid association at the time of the accident, it is obvious that the procedure for indictment is invalid in violation of the provisions of the Act, and thus,

Judges Choi Dok-ho