beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 2020.04.09 2019노182

업무상과실치상

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the Defendants.

Reasons

1. The court below found Defendant A not guilty of all the facts charged of this case, even though he/she contributed to the occurrence of the above accident as a person responsible for safety management at the scene of the accident, who was negligent in performing duties and contributed to the occurrence of the above accident, while driving the vehicle he/she had to drive the vehicle at the time of the accident (the fact-finding).

2. Determination

A. Determination of the credibility of a confession shall be made in consideration of all the circumstances, including whether the content of the confession statement itself is objectively rational, what is the motive or reason for the confession, what is the circumstance leading to the confession, and what is not contrary to or contradictory to the confession among the circumstantial evidence other than the confession.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2015Do17869 Decided October 13, 2016 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do17869). The probative value of evidence is left to a judge’s free judgment, but such determination ought to be consistent with logical and empirical rules, and the degree of the formation of a conviction to be convicted in a criminal trial ought to be such a reasonable doubt as to the extent that all possible doubts are excluded. However, the rejection of evidence that recognized the probative value as having no reasonable ground is impermissible as exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

The term “reasonable doubt” in this context refers to a reasonable doubt as to the probability of facts that cannot be compatible with the facts in accordance with logical and empirical rules, rather than all questions and correspondences. As such, a reasonable doubt based on conceptual suspicion or abstract possibility should be included in a reasonable doubt, as it is necessary to establish a reasonable reasoning in relation to the finding of facts favorable to the defendant.

Supreme Court Decision 200