CONTENTS
- 1. Traffic Accident Law Office | Case Background
- - The Client's Arguments
- - Summary Indictment by the Prosecution
- - Timeline of the Traffic Accident Case
- 2. Traffic Accident Law Office | Case Review
- - Issues Relating to the Traffic Accident Case
- - Summary of Supreme Court Decision 2022Do12175
- 3. Traffic Accident Law Office | Areas of Assistance
- 4. Traffic Accident Law Office | Case Concluded With Dismissal of Prosecution of the Traffic Accident Injury Charge
1. Traffic Accident Law Office | Case Background
The client who visited the traffic accident law office was changing lanes in a solid white line section when a contact accident occurred with a vehicle proceeding straight, and the client received a summary indictment on a charge of injury under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.
However, the traffic accident attorney, examining this case, determined under the en banc decision of the Supreme Court (2022Do12175) that the client should receive a dismissal of prosecution rather than a fine.
The Client's Arguments
① At the time of the accident, the client activated the turn signal in the dotted-line section before the solid white line and attempted to change lanes while slowing down
② The client mistook the victim's vehicle widening the gap with the car ahead as yielding and entered the lane without due care
③ The client argued that the rear of the victim's vehicle was struck in the solid-line section, and that this was not an abrupt cut-in
④ Immediately after the accident, comprehensive insurance processing was completed, followed by a criminal settlement and submission of a statement of no desire for punishment
Summary Indictment by the Prosecution
However, the prosecution, which reviewed this case, judged the point that the client changed lanes in a solid white line section and made contact with the victim's vehicle proceeding straight to constitute gross negligence, and accordingly issued a summary indictment on a charge of injury under Article 3, Paragraph 2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.
As a result, the client came to receive a fine.
This indictment was made without sufficiently reflecting the change in the legal principle of Supreme Court precedent, and it was necessary to contest the substantive content of the matter again through a formal trial.
Timeline of the Traffic Accident Case
Progression of the Case |
A contact accident occurred within a four-lane one-way section on a road in the Seoul metropolitan area. ↓ Appearance at the competent police station and a suspect interrogation were conducted. ↓ Compensation for the damage through comprehensive insurance was completed, and a criminal settlement and a statement of no desire for punishment were submitted. ↓ A related en banc judgment was pronounced by the Supreme Court (2022Do12175 judgment). ↓ Nevertheless, notice of a summary indictment for the charge of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (injury) was received from the prosecution. ↓ The matter was retained by the Daeryun Law Firm Traffic Accident Legal Office, and a legal response was requested. |
2. Traffic Accident Law Office | Case Review
The attorney at the Traffic Accident Law Office determined that this case, too, should result in a dismissal of prosecution in accordance with a Supreme Court en banc decision.
Accordingly, the attorney identified the issues in the case and analyzed the relevant precedents.
Issues Relating to the Traffic Accident Case
Issue | Content |
Application of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents | Whether the client's lane change constituted 🔗one of the 12 forms of gross negligence, and emphasizing that the client slowed down and turned on the turn signal |
Failure to reflect the Supreme Court decision | Argument that, under Supreme Court precedent, the prosecution's indictment did not reflect the change in legal principle |
Circumstances of the lane change at the time of the accident | The client changed lanes while slowing down in a dotted line section The victim misperceived the client's act of widening the gap |
Insurance processing and settlement completed | Insurance processing and settlement had already been completed, and a statement of no desire to punish the client was submitted regarding the victim |
Summary of Supreme Court Decision 2022Do12175
A solid white line is a no-lane-change marking, and it does not constitute the 'no-passage' sign referred to in the proviso, Item 1 of Article 3, Paragraph 2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.
Accordingly, a driver who crosses a solid white line and causes an accident is subject to the special provisions on punishment (the rule that the crime is not punishable against the victim's will and the special provision regarding comprehensive insurance coverage).
(Proviso, Item 1 : cases of driving in violation of a signal indicated by a traffic light, a signal of a police officer directing traffic, or an instruction indicated by a safety sign concerning no-passage or a temporary stop)
The proviso, Item 1 provides only for violations of safety signs concerning 'no-passage' or a 'temporary stop'.
A solid white line is a no-lane-change marking and does not mean 'no-passage', so it does not exclude the application of the special provisions of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, which is the issue here.
At the time the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents was enacted, the solid white line prohibiting lane changes was not included among 'no-passage' signs.
This was because, at that time, the Enforcement Rules of the Road Traffic Act defined the solid white line as a 'lane-change restriction line'.
Because a solid white line does not constitute a safety sign concerning no-passage, a driver who crosses it is subject to the special provisions on punishment under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and it was determined that no ground for excluding those special provisions arises.
3. Traffic Accident Law Office | Areas of Assistance
The attorney from the traffic accident law office argued that, in light of the outcome of the preceding judgment, the client's case should also result in a dismissal of prosecution.
Argument |
Clearly explained the legal principles related to the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents to help the client understand whether the special punishment provisions applied |
Argued the possibility of applying the special punishment provisions on the ground that a solid white line is not regarded as a 'no-passing' sign |
Reviewed Article 3, Paragraph 2 and Subparagraph 4 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and emphasized that the grounds for excluding the special punishment provisions did not apply |
A 🔗out-of-court settlement had already been fully completed, and a statement of no desire for punishment had been submitted |
4. Traffic Accident Law Office | Case Concluded With Dismissal of Prosecution of the Traffic Accident Injury Charge
In this case taken on by an attorney of the traffic accident law office, the main issue was whether the special punishment provisions under the 🔗Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents applied.
The attorney of Daeryun Law Firm argued for dismissal of prosecution on the ground that a solid white line is not regarded as a ‘no-passage’ sign.
After reviewing prior rulings and the client's case, the court rendered a judgment of dismissal of prosecution.
If, as in this case, you have an objection to a prosecutor's disposition, you may seek a consultation through a 🔗legal consultation reservation.
This content is based on actual case studies of Daeryun Law LLC with some adaptations, and the copyright belongs to our firm.
Unauthorized reproduction, duplication, or distribution and other copyright infringements may result in legal action under applicable laws.
