(a) The meaning of emergency services in the case of emergency motor vehicles used for the escort and guard of the inmate;

(b) Where an emergency motor vehicle is permitted to be invaded by an installation line;

A. In the case of an automobile used for the escort of an inmate designated as an emergency motor vehicle under Article 2 subparagraph 13 of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 3744 of Aug. 4, 1984), the "security guard for the escort of the inmate" itself is an emergency duty, and it cannot be said that it is an emergency duty according to the purpose of the escort.

B. For emergency motor vehicles, the corresponding provisions of the Road Traffic Act concerning the guarantee of preferential traffic right, speed limit and prohibition of overtaking are stipulated in the same Act, but the special provisions of Article 11-2 of the same Act excluding the prohibition of intrusion on the installed lane provided for in Article 11-2 of the same Act do not stipulate such special provisions, so in the case of emergency motor vehicles, it shall be subject to Article 11-2 of the same Act as in the case of motor vehicles. However, the intrusion on the installed lane shall be allowed only in an urgent case by Article 24 of the same Act.

A. Article 2 subparag. 13 of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 3744 of Aug. 4, 1984), Article 2 subparag. 13 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 11-2 and Article 24 of the same Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 83Do2719 delivered on December 27, 1983

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 84No4177 delivered on November 1, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

(1) According to Article 2 subparagraph 13 of the Road Traffic Act and Article 2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the term "emergency motor vehicle" means a motor vehicle designated by the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, etc. from among the motor vehicles enumerated in any of the following subparagraphs, which are operated for emergency use, and "motor vehicles used for arresting or guarding inmates from among the motor vehicles operated by correctional institutions or correctional institutions" in subparagraph 4 of the same Article. Thus, in the case of a motor vehicle used for the escorting and guarding of the inmate designated as an emergency motor vehicle, the term "emergency guard of the inmate" itself is an emergency service, and it is not possible to determine whether the inmate is in need of urgent use according to the purpose of the escort. Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the escort of the inmate to participate in the training competition is not an emergency service.

(2) However, as to whether the provisions of Article 11-2 of the same Act on the prohibition of collision with the vehicle line are excluded from the application of emergency motor vehicles, the right of preferential traffic is guaranteed to the emergency motor vehicles pursuant to Articles 12, 16, and 24 of the same Act. According to Article 25 of the same Act, the special provisions of Articles 13 and 18 of the same Act concerning speed limitation and prohibition of overtaking shall be excluded from the application of Article 13 and 18 of the same Act, but in the case of emergency motor vehicles, the special provisions concerning prohibition of collision with the installation line as provided in Article 11-2 of the same Act are not prescribed, so even in the case of emergency motor vehicles, the designation of the vehicle shall be subject to Article 11-2 of the same Act as in the case of the first one (see Supreme Court Decision 83Da2719, Dec. 27, 1983).

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

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)