[1] Whether the act of a driver of a motor vehicle on a general road, other than an expressway or motorway, is included in the "cases where he/she makes a internship in violation of Article 62 of the Road Traffic Act" under the proviso of Article 3 (2) 2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (negative)

[2] Whether the act of driving a vehicle in violation of the signals indicated by the signal apparatus under Article 5 of the Road Traffic Act, which is driven by signal apparatus emitting green, yellow, red yellow light, and safety signs prohibiting U-turns, and a green light at the intersection where a safety signs are installed (affirmative in principle)

[1] Article 3 (1) and proviso 2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 268 of the Criminal Act, Article 57 and Article 62 of the Road Traffic Act / [2] Article 3 (1) and proviso 1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 268 of the Criminal Act, Article 5 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 6 (2) [Attachment 2] and Article 6 (2) [Attachment 6] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2010Do3436 Decided March 15, 2012 (Gong2012Sang, 607)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Suwon District Court Decision 2013No4986 decided February 12, 2014

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the proviso of Article 3(2)2 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, when a driver who commits a crime of injury by occupational negligence in the course of traffic in the course of a traffic accident commits the crime above by committing the act corresponding to “the case where a driver is in violation of Article 62 of the Road Traffic Act,” a public prosecution may be instituted against the express intent of the victim. However, Article 62 of the Road Traffic Act provides that “the driver of a motor vehicle shall not cross, drive, drive, or drive on an expressway, etc. by driving the motor vehicle.” Article 57 of the Road Traffic Act provides that “an expressway, etc.” means only an expressway or motorway, and thus, the act of an internship in the general course is not included in “the case where a driver is in violation of Article 62 of the Road Traffic Act” (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do3436, Mar. 15,

The judgment of the court of first instance is justified in finding that the road in which the traffic accident in this case occurred is not the case of internship in violation of Article 62 of the Road Traffic Act, since there is no evidence of the fact that it is an expressway or motorway, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to Article 3(2) proviso of the Act on Special Cases concerning

2. In full view of the provisions of Article 5 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 6(2) [Attachment 2] and Article 8(2) [Attachment 6] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, the intersection where only the signal transmission of green, yellow and red yellow light and safety signs prohibiting U-turns are installed are not allowed. Thus, if only the straight-way and right-hand transmissions are going to a green light, it shall be deemed that driving in violation of the signals indicated by signal apparatus under Article 5 of the Road Traffic Act, barring special circumstances.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the defendant violated the signal signal at the time of the traffic accident in this case, considering the following facts: (a) the victim driving vehicle entering the intersection in the front side of the vehicle in the same direction as the traffic signal at the time of the traffic accident in this case changed the lane from one lane to two lanes in a green straight line; (b) the front side of the vehicle in front of the defendant entering the intersection in the intersection in the front side of the vehicle in the front side of the intersection in the same direction for U-turn; and (c) the victim driving vehicle entering the intersection in the rear side of the vehicle in the same direction did shock the left side of the vehicle in the front side of the vehicle in the same direction; and (d) the change of the vehicle in the intersection in the intersection cannot be deemed a signal violation.

However, according to the records, the location where the traffic accident in this case occurred can be seen that the signal that only green, yellow, and red blue lights emitted and the green light in the front direction of the course was turned down at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at a three-distance intersection where the U-turn prohibited sign was installed. Thus, in light of the above legal principles, the defendant's proceeding in order to walk in the intersection constitutes the case of driving in violation of the signal signals displayed by the signal apparatus, unless there are special circumstances. When the defendant is a green light, it is necessary to not only prevent the proceeding of the opposite direction when the vehicle in the front direction of the same direction is driven through green light, but also to protect the credibility of the rear vehicle in the same direction that is trusted that the vehicle in the same direction of the same way would proceed through the green light, in light of the relevant regulations such as the importance of responsibility for the traffic violation, the road traffic act, and the legislative intent of the traffic accident resolution law, etc., the defendant shall also be held liable for the signal signal to the rear vehicle following the proceeding signal in the same direction (see Supreme Court Decision 20085Do5484.

Therefore, the traffic accident of this case constitutes a crime of injury by occupational negligence due to the violation of signal signal under Article 3 (1) and (2) (proviso) 1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents. Thus, the judgment below which held that the defendant did not violate signal, constitutes a ground for dismissal of prosecution, and thus, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the violation of signal under the Road Traffic Act

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)