진로변경제한선(백색실선)을 통행금지를 내용으로 하는 안전표지로 볼 수 있는지 여부

This Article is a commentary on Supreme Court en banc Decision 2022Do12175 decided June 20, 2024, which deals with a question of whether crossing the white solid line constitutes a “violation of the safety sign that prohibits traffic movement,” the grounds for exclusion from the special cases for punishment under Article 3(2) Subparag. 1 proviso of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents. Considering that there is a ruling from the Supreme Court, with regard to the issue at dispute, which held that driving on or over the white solid line falls under the grounds for exclusion from the special cases for punishment under Subparag. 1 proviso, whether to reverse the prior decision has been also disputed. To review the case in point in the subject case, this Article first examines the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (hereinafter “Special Act on Traffic Accidents”). More specifically, the background leading up to the legislation of the Special Act on Traffic Accidents, those who are regulated by the Act, statutory provisions regarding the crime unpunishable over the express objection of the victim related to the case in dispute, the meaning of special provisions on the subscription to combined insurance policies, and the criticism and the opinion advocating for the abolishment of the special cases falling under the exclusion from punishment are examined. The above examination is followed by the probe into the disputed provision which prohibits the change of lanes. Through the legislative chronological examination and comparative legal analysis, this Article examines the period in which the provision prohibiting lane changes was introduced in South Korea’s Road Traffic Act and the background leading up to the introduction of the said provision, how other countries regulate lane changes, and sections of the road where the change of lanes is prohibited under the current law (sections of the road marked by the white solid line). Following the discussion of the above issues, prior decisions of the Supreme Court regarding the case in dispute and the trends of the lower courts’ judgments are examined. The conflicting views regarding the case in dispute have been analyzed in terms of legal theory and practical aspects; one arguing that the invasion of the white solid line must be considered as falling under the special cases for punishment, contrary to the prior decisions of the Supreme Court, and the other opposing such categorization. Finally, this Article points out the subject case’s reversal of the prior decisions by adopting the theory advocating for the application of the special cases for punishment through an in-depth review of the case in dispute and affirms the significance of the conclusion of the subject case based on the legal doctrine established by the subject case.