Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents | Analysis of a Supreme Court Judgment Holding That the Twelve Categories of Gross Negligence Cannot Apply to a Driver Who Caused an Accident by Crossing a Solid White Line

The defendant in this case was A, who was brought to trial on a charge of violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

In 2021, A was driving in the first of four lanes in one direction and then crossed a solid white line to move into the second lane.

However, a private taxi that was traveling in the second lane at the time braked suddenly to avoid colliding with A's vehicle, and in this process a taxi passenger was injured.

The prosecution took the view that the solid white line A crossed constituted a “no-passage marking,” and that the accident caused thereby fell within the twelve categories of gross negligence that are subject to criminal punishment.

On that basis, the prosecution applied the charge of violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents to A.

First, the court of first instance rendered a judgment of “dismissal of prosecution.”

As for the safety signs set out in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, their scope of application is clearly limited to “no passage or a temporary stop.”

In other words, the court explained that a solid white line is merely a marking that prohibits changing course and is not a marking that prohibits passage, and that the prosecutor's argument interpreting the solid white line as a “safety sign the content of which is no passage” could not be accepted.

The prosecution thereupon filed an appeal, but the appellate court likewise shared the view of the court of first instance.

However, as the prosecution immediately filed a final appeal, the matter passed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court likewise found no error in the determination of the lower courts and dismissed the prosecutor's final appeal.

In the final-appeal proceedings as well, the central issue was whether the “solid white line” could be regarded as a “no-passage sign.”

The Supreme Court, like the courts of first and second instance, determined that crossing a solid white line cannot be regarded as a violation of a prohibition on passage.

In particular, the Supreme Court noted the point that the Road Traffic Act regulates the prohibition on passage and the prohibition on changing course separately and applies different schemes of punishment to them.

Article 6(1) of the Road Traffic Act provides that, “where it is necessary and recognized as such to prevent danger on a road and to secure traffic safety and smooth traffic flow,” passage may be prohibited or restricted by designating sections.

A violation of such a prohibition on passage is punishable under Article 156, subparagraph 2 of the same Act.

By contrast, the legal basis for the prohibition on changing course is different.

According to Article 14(5) of the Road Traffic Act, a vehicle may not change course in a place where a safety sign is installed and changing course is specifically prohibited.

In addition, a violation of the prohibition on changing course is punishable under Article 156, subparagraph 1 of the same Act.

Because the “prohibition on passage” and the “prohibition on changing course” thus prescribe different prohibitory norms, the Supreme Court pointed out that interpreting the prohibition on passage and the prohibition on changing course on the same footing and thereby applying the twelve categories of gross negligence goes beyond the objective meaning of the text and constitutes an interpretation unfavorable to the defendant.

In 2004, the Supreme Court had rendered a judgment to the effect that, for a traffic accident involving the crossing of a solid white line, the provisions on crimes not punishable against the victim's will (a Korean-law offense that cannot be punished if the victim expressly objects to punishment, with no exact common-law equivalent) and the special provisions on comprehensive insurance coverage did not apply.

This time, the Supreme Court rendered a judgment holding that a “solid white line” does not constitute a safety sign, so that a driver who crosses such a line and causes an accident may be treated under the rule on crimes not punishable against the victim's will, thereby changing the prior precedent.

Regarding that judgment, the Supreme Court explained that it had strictly interpreted the meaning of “prohibition on passage” so that the scope of criminal punishment would not be unduly expanded contrary to the legislative intent.

As the Supreme Court precedent on solid white lines has changed after more than twenty years, considerable changes are expected at the scene of traffic accidents as well.

However, one should not conclude from this judgment that crossing a solid white line is permitted on every road.

It is only that the twelve categories of gross negligence do not apply when the driver has reached a settlement with the victim and is covered by comprehensive insurance; “crossing a solid white line” remains an act subject to the imposition of a traffic fine.

In addition, where a driver overtakes by crossing a solid white line within a bridge or tunnel, the driver may be subject to criminal punishment under separate provisions.

At Daeryun Law Firm LLP, professionals handling traffic accident matters work together as one team to provide tailored assistance to clients.

If you become involved in litigation related to a traffic accident and need professional assistance, you are welcome to contact Daeryun Law Firm LLP at any time.