The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. Progress of litigation;

A. The lower court determined that the Defendant’s act does not constitute “in cases of driving a vehicle in violation of the signal” under Article 3(2)1 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, since the vehicle driven by the Defendant is “emergency motor vehicles” under Article 29(2) of the Road Traffic Act and the Defendant’s failure to temporarily stop in the red and flickering signal at the time of the instant case was “emergency and inevitable” under the said provision, and that the Defendant’s act does not constitute “in cases of driving a vehicle in violation of the signal.” The lower court rendered a judgment dismissing the instant prosecution on the ground that the vehicle driven by the Defendant was covered by the comprehensive motor vehicle insurance and the victims explicitly expressed their intent

B. The prosecutor of the judgment of the court prior to remand filed an appeal on the grounds of misunderstanding the legal principles as to the judgment of the court below, and the court prior to the remand also rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecutor’s appeal on the grounds the same as the judgment of the court below.

(c)

The prosecutor of the judgment of remand filed an appeal on the grounds of misunderstanding of legal principles as to the judgment of the court before remanding, and the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court before remanding, and remanded the case to this court agreement.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles) is that even if the Defendant is a “emergency motor vehicle” driver under Article 29(2) of the Road Traffic Act, the application of the proviso of Article 3(2)1 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents is not excluded. Thus, the instant facts charged ought to be deemed guilty pursuant to Article 3(2)1 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

3. Determination

A. Article 29 of the Road Traffic Act does not require a stop of an emergency motor vehicle under this Act or any order issued under this Act in cases where it is urgent and inevitable.

Section 3 provides that "emergency motor vehicles........"