[1] The meaning of the former part of Article 3(2)2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1750, Feb. 1, 2006)

[2] The case holding that, even if a traffic accident occurred on the Defendant's running lane, where the accident occurred directly due to the Defendant's operation of the motor vehicle in the course of the center line, it constitutes a central collision accident under the former part of Article 3(2) proviso of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents

[1] Article 3 (2) (proviso) (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents refers to a case where traffic accidents occur in violation of the provisions of Article 13 (3) of the Road Traffic Act, not to refer to the case where the point where traffic accidents occur but to the case where traffic accidents occur in excess of the median line without any inevitable reason. The "inevitable reason" here means the case where there is no other appropriate measure to avoid the obstacles indicated on the ongoing lane, or where the driver tried to operate his/her lane in order to avoid the obstacles, but he/she is forced to run the median line without any inevitable reason due to external conditions that cannot be controlled by the driver, which means the case where there is an objective reason that cannot criticize the driver itself, and as long as the act of invasion of the central line directly causes the occurrence of the traffic accidents, it is not necessary to make the opposite line beyond the median line.

[2] The case holding that where the victim who discovered the defendant's operation of the median line has been forced to go to the opposite lane for the purpose of overtaking, but has come to the opposite lane, and the defendant's operation of the median line without any choice but has come to conflict with the defendant's driver's vehicle, the accident is directly caused by the defendant's operation of the median line, even if the accident occurred at the defendant's driving lane, and therefore the accident constitutes a collision with the median line under the former part of Article 3 (2) 2 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, since the defendant's operation of the median line is directly caused by the accident.

[1] Article 3 (2) 2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 13 (3) of the Road Traffic Act / [2] Article 3 (2) 2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents

[1] Supreme Court Decision 90Do536 delivered on September 25, 1990 (Gong1990, 2217) Supreme Court Decision 98Do832 delivered on July 28, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 2351)

Defendant

[Instigious Crime]

Attorney Lee Sung-soo

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

At around 16:25 on June 25, 2007, the Defendant driving a car of the truck (vehicle number omitted) car on the part of business (vehicle number omitted) and driving it from the Cheongcheon-si, Young-gu, Cheongcheon-si, the Defendant got off from the Cheongcheon-si, Cheongcheon-si, Cheongcheon-si, one way before the house of Non-Indicted 1, Cheongcheon-si, Cheongcheon-si, and the Defendant suffered from the injury, such as the abandonment of the Haak-gu, which requires approximately 12 weeks medical treatment, due to the negligence of the Defendant, who met the central line and operated the (vehicle number omitted) truck on the opposite lane, who was the victim Nonindicted 2 (37 years of age) who was driving the (vehicle number omitted) her vehicle on the opposite lane, and was driven over the center line to avoid the accident.

1. Partial statement of the defendant (the third date);

1. The police statement of Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 3

1. A report on actual condition of the police;

1. Investigation report (receiving a medical certificate);

1. Investigation report (Notification of Results of the investigation and analysis of traffic accidents);

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 3 (1) and 3 (2) (proviso) 2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and Article 268 (Selection of Depository Punishment)

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (Regular Consideration such as Agreement with Victims)

Judgment on Defendant’s argument

1. The defendant asserts that the accident occurred in the same way as the facts constituting the crime, but since the accident occurred in the lane of the defendant's proceeding, it does not constitute the Central Line Offense Accident.

2. Therefore, the term "if a traffic accident occurred in violation of Article 13 (3) of the Road Traffic Act" under the former part of the proviso of Article 3 (2) 2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents refers not to the case where the point where the traffic accident occurred does not go beyond the median line, but to the case where the traffic accident occurred in violation of the latter part of Article 13 (3) of the Road Traffic Act. The term "inevitable reason" here refers to the case where the driver does not take other appropriate measures to avoid the obstacles on the ongoing lane, or where the driver does not have any choice but has to go through the median line due to external conditions which are not controlled by the driver, but it is not necessary to criticize the driver itself, and so long as the traffic accident occurred directly due to the occurrence of the traffic accident, the central line does not need to go beyond the median line (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do9398, Jul. 28, 198);

3. According to the statement of each police statement made against Nonindicted 2 and 3 and the statement of the comprehensive analysis of traffic accidents prepared by the Road Traffic Safety Authority, the Defendant: (a) was placed in the center in order to overtake the previous vehicle, but has been placed in the lane after being overtaken; and (b) the victim Nonindicted 2, who was going in the opposite lane, was placed in the opposite lane, to find out the Defendant’s vehicle running along the center line, and to avoid any collision, he/she would be able to recognize the fact that it conflicts with the Defendant’s trucking on the opposite lane when entering the Defendant’s road beyond the center without any inevitable choice to avoid any collision.

4. According to the above facts, the accident in this case occurred as a direct cause to the Defendant’s operation of the central line without any inevitable reason. Thus, even if the location of the accident is the Defendant’s driving lane, it constitutes a central line collision accident as provided in the former part of Article 3(2)2 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

5. Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

Judges Nam-han