The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Eastern District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case and the summary of the facts charged by the lower court are as follows: (a) the Defendant driving a vehicle around 13:10 on May 14, 2016, and driving forward the front road of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government to the Pungdong Traditional Market at the location where the corporate bank’s wind is located, and (b) the victim crossinging the road to the left-hand side of the road from the direction of the direction of signs and surface display to the back-dong Traditional Market, unlike the direction of the backway intersection, by negligence going back along the back-way intersection, unlike the direction of the signs and surface display, was shocked to the left-hand part of the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle

As to this, the court below rejected the prosecution of this case on the ground that ① the meaning of the signboards through the intersection at the intersection of this case is “the direction that the signs will proceed along the motor vehicle in the direction of the sprink,” ② the meaning of the running direction indication on the intersection of this case is “the direction that the motor vehicle should pass along the intersection at the intersection.” Thus, even if the defendant violated the direction that indicates the direction of the passage of the intersection of this case, it is difficult to view it as “the case of operating the motor vehicle in violation of the direction that indicates the safety signs with the prohibition of traffic,” under Article 3(2)1 proviso of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents. ④ The defendant's driving of the motor vehicle was subscribed to the comprehensive motor vehicle insurance at the time of accident.

2. However, it is difficult to accept the above determination by the court below in light of the following points.

A. Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents provides that the crime of occupational injury and injury resulting from the traffic of vehicles shall not be prosecuted against the express will of the victim in principle: Provided, That the same shall not apply to the case falling under the proviso thereof. Article 3(2)1 provides that “the signal apparatus provided for in Article 5 of the Road Traffic Act or the police officer for traffic control.”