logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2016.01.08 2015노806
교통사고처리특례법위반
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The gist of the grounds of appeal is that the victim of this case constitutes "persons aboard a bus" as stipulated in Article 39 (2) of the Road Traffic Act, that is, "passengers aboard a bus", and thus, the victim suffered injury by the defendant, who is the passenger, due to negligence starting from the bus without properly closing the bus door. Thus, it constitutes Article 3 (2) proviso 10 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the procedure to institute a public prosecution of this case was null and void in violation of the provisions of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, on the ground that the instant case was not a violation of Article 3(2) proviso of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and Article 3(1) and Article 268 of the Criminal Act, and that it constitutes a crime falling under Article 3(1) of the same Act and the main sentence of Article 4(1) of

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated, the lower court determined that the instant indictment was not prosecuted in cases where “the instant charges constitute a crime 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 are subscribed to mutual aid agreements pursuant to the main sentence of Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents,” and that the instant bus was admitted to the “mutual Aid Association of the Korea Bus Transport Business Association” as provided by the main sentence of Article 4(1) of the Act at the time of the accident, and thus, the instant indictment constitutes invalid in violation of the provisions of the Act.

(1) "When a person drives a vehicle in violation of the duty to prevent the falling of passengers provided for in Article 39 (3) of the Road Traffic Act" provided for in Article 3 (2) (proviso) 10 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents means "the vehicle" provided for in Article 39 (3) of the Road Traffic Act.

arrow