The meaning of "when the center line of a road is invaded" under Article 3 (2) 2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

Article 3 (2) 2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents refers to the case where traffic accidents occur due to driving of the central line of the road along which the lanes are installed in violation of the provisions of Article 11-2 (2) of the Road Traffic Act, and since traffic accidents do not include all cases where the place of traffic accidents is the point beyond the central line, it shall not include any cases where traffic accidents occur. Thus, it shall not be applicable to cases where accidents shocking the victim at the point beyond the central line without plucking or plucking the hand on the left side in order to avoid the crossing pedestrians while driving the right side line of

Article 3(2)2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 11-2(2) of the Road Traffic Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Oido-do

Daegu District Court Decision 83No191 delivered on October 14, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

When a traffic accident is caused by driving a motor vehicle in the center line in violation of the provisions of Article 11-2 (2) of the Road Traffic Act in the former part of Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, which is an exception to punishment that cannot be prosecuted against the clearly expressed intent of the victim, should be understood to mean that the traffic accident is caused by driving the motor vehicle in the center line in violation of the legislative intent of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and the location of the traffic accident is not all the cases that are the point beyond the center line.

When collecting evidence at the time of the court below, the accident of this case is sufficient to recognize the circumstances of the accident that caused the shock of the victim at the point beyond the central line of the road without any breathing or plucking the victim to the left-hand side while driving the vehicle along the right-hand side line of the point of the accident of this case, which is one side of the main line of the defendant, while driving the vehicle along the right-hand side of the main line of the accident of this case, which is about seven meters prior to the course, and trying to avoid it. Thus, it is sufficient to find out the circumstances of the accident that caused the shock of the victim at a point beyond the central line of the road. Therefore, the measure of the court below which maintained the judgment of the court of first instance that dismissed the prosecution of this case in this purport is justifiable, and it cannot be said that the violation of the rules of evidence, the incomplete deliberation, and the misunderstanding of legal principles of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, etc., and therefore

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

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)