1. 이 사건 공소사실의 요지는, 피고인은 15톤 덤프트럭의 운전업무에 종사하는 자로서, 1993.10.20. 11:00경 위 덤프트럭에 10여톤의 화물(모래)을 싣고 황색실선의 중앙선이 설치된 편도 1차선의 아스팔트 포장도로 위를 시속 약 50킬로미터의 속도로 진행하다가 전방도로의 노폭이 좁아지고 반대편 차선에서 마주 진행하여 오는 1톤 포터 화물자동차를 발견하게 되자 감속하기 위하여 급제동조치를 취하였으나, 조향 및 제동장치를 정확하게 조작하지 못한 잘못으로 위 덤프트럭을 반대차선으로 넘어 들어가게 하여 마침 반대차선에서 진행중이던 피해자 강희철 운전의 오토바이와 피해자 이상택 운전의 1톤 포터 화물자동차 전면부를 위 트럭의 좌측 전면부로 들이받아 그 충격으로 위 피해자들을 현장에서 사망에 이르게 하였다는 것이고, 이에 대하여 원심은, 검사가 제출한 증거들만으로는 피고인의 과실로 위 덤프트럭이 중앙선을 침범하였다고 단정하기에 부족하고, 오히려 검사가 제출한 일부 증거들과 공판기록에 첨부된 사진의 영상에 의하면, 당시 도로상태가 직선이고 전방에 진행하는 차량이 없어서 특별히 추월을 시도하거나 급제동조치를 취할 만한 상황이 아니었다고 보여지는 점, 이 사건 교통사고발생 당시 도로에 나타난 스키드마크자국을 보면 우측 타이어만 표시되어 있는데, 이는 좌측 타이어의 빵꾸로 인하여 핸들이 갑자기 좌측으로 꺽여 우측 타이어가 밀리면서 생긴 것이라고 추측되는 점, 좌측 타이어의 안쪽에 빵꾸가 난 것에 비추어 볼 때 이 사건 교통사고로 인한 외부충격에 의하여 빵꾸가 난 것으로는 보기 어려운 점, 타이어가 빵꾸난 경우 차량의 핸들은 갑자기 왼쪽으로 쏠리는 것인데 위 차량은 이 사건 교통사고지점에서 거의 직각으로 왼쪽으로 확 꺽이면서 중앙선을 침범하여 피해차량과 충돌한 점, 불과 1톤 트럭과 충돌하면서 지면에 전도되었다는 점, 피고인이 졸면서 운전한 것으로는 보이지 않는 점 등을 엿볼 수 있으므로, 이 사건 교통사고는 이 사건 사고 전의 타이어의 빵꾸에 의하여 피고인 운전의 덤프트럭이 불가항력적으로 중앙선을 침범하게 되어 발생한 것이라고 보여지고, 따라서 피고인에 대한 이 사건 공소사실은 범죄의 증명이 없는 경우에 해당한다고 하여 제1심판결을 파기하고 피고인에 대하여 무죄를 선고하였다.

2. However, the lower court’s recognition that breaved the central line breath because breaved on breath, is difficult to breath for the following reasons.

A. In light of the record, the Defendant was unable to change two front wheelss of the dump truck into a dump truck (SUTPP CUG323AE 31PB 455P) in a sump truck’s trade name, “Abbbbbbbb bumb bum bump”, prior to approximately 30 minutes of the accident, and one hour prior to the occurrence of the accident. It can be seen that part of the front part of the dump truck’s bump truck was cut off with two front parts of the front part of the dump truck and found with a three-dimensional shape after the occurrence of the accident (a part damaged by 3 is concentrated on one side, and all the remainder remains in full).

According to each description of the appraisal request report and fact-finding inquiry report prepared by an appraiser Kim Man, who appraised the above typhe, the damaged shape of the typhe means that the part of the typhe monthly (SIDWAL) was damaged first due to a serious shock with the typhe material, and the inside typhe of the inside part of the typhe at the last time shows the tear condition, and on the contrary, the inside typhe occurred first in the inside typhe in the inside typhe, and the inside typhe was not damaged by the wheels of the typhe in the outside of the typhe part of the typhe in the inside typhe, and the form was not damaged by the typhe of the typhe in the above mentioned material, but by the shock or pressure of the typhe at the time of facing with the objects and objects of the accident, etc. neglected in the immediately preceding or accident objects at the surface.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was a certain obstacle on the above road at the time of the accident, and rather, examining the photographs of other words bound on the 55 pages of the trial record, the damaged parts of other words were immediately lower than quidrums, and there was a considerable height difference from the floor surface of other parts directly abutting on the ground, and the damaged parts were left far away from the shock, and the two parts immediately adjacent to the two parts were cut off, and the two parts were further cut off, and / the most damaged parts were considerably damaged (the other part remains far away) and the quith, adjacent to the other parts were damaged by the shock, so the shock intensity of the shock that was broken at the time can be written off. In light of the damaged parts or degree, even if certain metal obstacles exist on the surface, it cannot be deemed that there was a probability that the above degree of damage on the surface of metal cannot be seen as an extremely high degree of damage on the surface of the other parts.

On the other hand, according to the police officer's statement of dump truck's dump truck's front side and the part of the damaged vehicle's front side of the accident occurred. Since one ton of the truck came under the bottom of 15 tons of truck after the collision, two vehicles were separated from towing lanes, and one ton of the front wheels of the truck was separated, and one ton of the truck was connected, and the photograph attached to the front 160 and 106 of the investigation record is found to be 90 degrees back and 90 degrees back to the right side of the body of the dump truck's front side which was installed as a vertical length, it can be seen that the dump truck's degree of shock at the time of the accident or the degree of damage to the above two vehicles is very serious. Thus, it is highly probable that the above part of the truck was damaged due to the dump of the above 1 ton of the truck.

나. 타이어가게를 경영하는 공소외 장병조에 대한 사법경찰관 작성의 진술조서의 기재에 의하면, 타이어의 빵꾸에는 두 가지가 있는데, 첫번째는 바람이 서서히 빠지면서 몇 분 내지 몇십 분간은 빵꾸가 난 것을 모르고 핸들이 한쪽으로 서서히 쏠리는 상태에서 그대로 진행하게 되는 경우이고, 두번째는 이 사건과 같이 돌발적인 사고를 야기하는 빵구로서 상당히 크게 “뻥”하는 소리가 남과 동시에 타이어가 완전히 내려앉고 핸들이 갑자기 한쪽으로 쏠리는 경우라는 것이다.

Therefore, if a sudden bread tending before an accident, there is no reason for the Defendant to avoid the accident. However, according to the record, the Defendant only testified in the police and the prosecutor's office that the sudden truck was cut to the left, and the Defendant only stated that there was a sudden wave to the left, and “after the accident, other persons became aware that there was a wave from the accident,” and “sprinking that there was a big and high wave of the wave, and the sprinking sound could not be seen before the accident. If the Defendant did not know that the sprink was cut out before the accident, it was not breath before the accident, but before the accident, she viewed that there was a sprinking wheel in front of the dump truck after the accident, and the Defendant did not hear the above sprinking vehicle before the accident, and he did not hear the sprinking vehicle before the accident.”

In addition, if one qui was bread, where one qui was bread, and the other qui was boomed with the other side of the left qui, and the motor vehicle was boomed with the other side, so the defendant cannot make a statement by himself that he was bread due to the shock caused by the accident where the qui was bread before the accident, and when the above breadbing was done before the accident, the breath was divided into the front quidrum, and the breath was damaged. The part damaged by the front quidle of the left quid, even though the quidle was continuously caused by the division into the drum, is extremely narrow part, and it is not found that the drum was also a drum.

C. Next, we examine whether the court below is justified in finding that the accident occurred due to baking is an accident.

First, the judgment of the court below that it is practically impossible to provide bread due to the collision between vehicles and the shock of inner part due to the collision of vehicles is erroneous as seen in the above A.

Secondly, it cannot be the ground for dump truck to occur before the accident occurred because it conflicts with fump truck and 1 ton truck and dump truck had to the right side. This is because the dump truck has not been restored to the left side, and it is not due to the fact that a dump truck had to the right side of the court below due to a sudden dump truck's being dump, and the left quith of the road has been sumped and has lost its balance.

셋째, 오른쪽 바퀴만의 스키드마크가 생긴 이유는 왼쪽 타이어의 빵꾸로 인하여 핸들이 갑자기 좌측으로 꺽여 우측 타이어가 밀렸기 때문이라고 추측된다는 원심의 판단도 수긍하기 어렵다.

If a breavebing is made to the left wheels, the load of the vehicle would cut to the left left side of the vehicle. As such, the drum itself on the left side of the road would cut to the lower left side, while the right side would be less than the lower part, and it would be likely that the quier would occur. Furthermore, according to the images of the photographs bound by the investigation record, it can be known that the skimark of the right wheels on the road does not immediately indicate to the port and the right side comes to the right side, and the degree of the skimark on the road starts to go to the right side and the right side comes to the right line is serious. If the qui State was caused by the breavebing, it would not be possible to create the skimark of the direct part as above.

The Defendant stated that he was taking measures to reduce the speed of the vehicles immediately before the accident between the police and the prosecution, and that the above Kim-young truck was driven by the police at a speed above the limit of the dump truck. The witness knob of the first instance court, who observed a traffic accident at a distance of 70 through 80 meters from the point of accident, stated that the witness knob "" and "prob" were recorded, but according to the second protocol of examination of the suspect who prepared the judicial police assistant, the Defendant stated that "on the left side of the vehicle so that the vehicle was pushed off to reduce speed, and that the vehicle was destroyed to the right side of the vehicle, and that the vehicle was destroyed to the left side of the road by the latest dump of the vehicle, and that the vehicle was destroyed to the right side of the vehicle, and that the vehicle was destroyed to the left side of the road, and that the vehicle was driven to the left side of the road, and that the vehicle was driven to the left side of the road, and that the vehicle was turned off to the left side of the road.

넷째, 피고인이 졸았다고 볼 만한 증거가 없고, 사고차량이 이 사건 교통사고지점에서 거의 직각으로 왼쪽으로 확 꺽이면서 중앙선을 침범하여 피해차량과 충돌한 점으로 보아 타이어에 빵꾸가 나서 중앙선을 침범한 것으로 보아야 한다는 원심의 판단에 관하여 살펴보면, 원심의 위와 같은 판단은 심하게 말하여 운전자가 졸지 않은 상태에서 차량이 갑자기 좌회전하였다면 그 이유는 타이어에 빵꾸가 났기 때문이라고 볼 수밖에 없다는 것인데, 그와 같은 경험칙이 존재한다고는 볼 수 없을 것이고, 오히려 앞서 본 바와 같이 교통사고로 인한 충격으로 빵꾸가 나게 된 것이고, 사고발생 전에 빵꾸가 난 것은 아니라는 사실이 여러가지 증거들에 의하여 뒷받침되고 있으므로, 이 사건에서는 원심이 설시하는 위와 같은 점이 타이어에 빵꾸가 나서 중앙선을 침범한 것이라고 인정할 만한 직접적인 증거자료가 될 수 없다.

D. According to other evidence consistent with the defendant's explanation that the central line was invaded by a dump, which corresponds to the defendant's explanation that the dump bbbbbing in a vehicle, the fact that the above dump was invaded by the central line due to the relationship that prepared a traffic accident report as stated by the dump driver's statement, the above dump was stated that the central line was invaded by the dump survey report. Meanwhile, according to the record of the judicial police council and each protocol of suspect examination prepared by the prosecutor, the defendant was found immediately after the accident that the dump truck was damaged by the defendant's left right wheels of the above dump truck operated by the police. Accordingly, the entry of the above dump survey report in the above dump is nothing more than the defendant's statement and it cannot be said that the defendant's statement was concurrent with the defendant's statement.

3. Thus, the defendant's breabing of the defendant's vehicle is deemed to be due to the defendant's collision with the damaged vehicle due to the defendant's central line's shocking of the damaged vehicle and shocking of the damaged vehicle. However, the court below judged this contrary. Thus, the court below erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations and by violating the rules of evidence, and such illegality affected the judgment. Thus, there is a reason to point this out.

4. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)