(b) Criteria for determining the duty of care for defensive driving of vehicles entering the motor vehicle after changing the motor vehicle line;

(c) Circumstances in which the fault of the truck driver is recognized and heighted with respect to an accident caused by a truck shocking on the bus, seeking to drive the shock;

B. In an accident that conflicts with a bus that enters the train by changing the lane from the third line to the roadside of the truck, in order to have a duty of care to take necessary measures to prevent the shock, the bus can only be presumed to have entered the roadside of the truck on the premise that the said bus was able to anticipate the fact that the bus entered the roadside of the truck by changing the lane. In such a case, the court should have determined whether the truck driver neglected to take necessary measures after examining the traffic situation of the front line at the time of the change of the bus traffic or the circumstances surrounding the change of the bus route.

C. In the instant accident that occurred after a truck was shocked on a bus, the truck driver’s negligence liability is illegal to recognize the truck driver’s negligence liability on duty, without any deliberation and determination as to the shock intensity, impact, etc. of shocking that the truck was unable to take place in the middle line, or the truck driver’s license was issued for five months merely because it was extremely poor for the trial run.

One hundred and thirty days of detention days after an appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

The lower judgment against Defendant 2 is reversed, and the part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

Examining the evidence at the time of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, it is sufficient to recognize the criminal facts of the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance. If there is no violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation, such as the theory of lawsuit in the process of recognition, and the circumstance of the accident is the same as the case at the time of original judgment, the accident where the bus of the defendant was driving while driving the right line of the truck, without any signal or advance notice, changing its course and falling short of the truck, is deemed to be due to the defendant's occupational negligence, such as the time of original judgment, and the accident where the truck which the defendant tried to drive without shock, might cause the accident by breaking the central line, and if it was knowing that the accident occurred with the vehicle which exceeded the central line, it constitutes a legitimate ground of appeal or unfair sentencing without any misapprehension of legal principles as to the escape accident and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the defendant's negligence or negligence.

2. As to Defendant 2 and his defense counsel’s grounds of appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance, if Defendant 1 continued to drive the bus 60 kilometers from the third line to the second line, and had a duty of care to safely enter the bus, and as a truck driven by the defendant is at the speed of 50 kilometers behind the bus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the duty of care as to the operation of the bus by failing to perform such duty of care, and thus, it was necessary for the defendant to take necessary measures such as prompt change of course. The court below erred in the misapprehension of the duty of care as to the operation of the bus 1 by failing to perform such duty of care. The court below erred in the misapprehension of the duty of care as to the operation of the bus 2nd line on the premise that it was difficult for the defendant to take necessary measures such as changing the course of the bus 5nd line, and the driver was not at the speed of the vehicle 5th line to the center line. The court below erred in the misapprehension of the duty of care as to the remaining operation of the bus 1nd line.

3. Therefore, Defendant 1’s appeal is without merit, and is dismissed, and by applying Article 57 of the Criminal Act Article 57, 130 days of pre-trial detention after the appeal shall be included in the principal sentence. Of the judgment below, the part on Defendant 2 among the judgment below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court which is the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by

Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)