B. The method of examining the evidence in a criminal case where it is not sufficient to take the evidence as evidence to recognize negligence.

B. A civil trial is not subject to the investigation in a criminal case or the facts acknowledged in the judgment, but it is not subject to the investigation, and it is not subject to the investigation of the results of the criminal case. However, barring any special circumstance, the fact-finding in a criminal trial is a flexible evidence. Therefore, if the evidence in a criminal case is insufficient to consider the traffic accident as a material to be caused by the defendant's negligence in the criminal case, it is not desirable to consider the examination with interest in the outcome of the criminal case.

2. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

A. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that Nonparty 1, who is the driver of the above 15 tons of a dump truck, operated the above truck at around 18:50 on December 9, 192, which was owned by the Defendant, had 00 tons of the above dump truck and carried out on the entrance of the National Highway No. 331 while driving it on the right side of the dump, which was 31, while driving the above dump truck at the above dump, by using the above dump truck without using evidence as indicated in its reasoning, it was difficult to identify obstacles on the dump of the dump. The above dump truck at the above dump, which was operated by the driver of the above dump truck at the speed of 0 to 60 meters away from the above dump, and thus, found the above dump truck at the speed of 8 meters away from the entrance of the above dump.

B. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the record, it seems that the court below acknowledged the direct cause of the accident of this case as due to the central crime of the truck of this case is mainly based on the statement of the written request for appraisal (Evidence No. 11-27) prepared by the Director of the National Institute of Scientific Investigation who analyzed and appraised the accident of this case at the request of the prosecutor in the investigation process of the case of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents against Nonparty 1.

However, under the premise that it is impossible to discuss accurate location of the collision (see, e.g., 140 pages). The purport of the collision accident of this case lies in finding the above truck which was rapidly operated by the deceased on the left-hand side and entered into the opposite line for reasons not attributable to the operation of the upper line, and that it was presumed that it occurred between the left-hand side and the operation of the upper line to a certain extent by plucking or digging up hand of the above otobb, etc., on the left-hand side. Even according to the appraisal result of this case, the court below should have determined whether the above obabba, which is close to the center line on the upper line of the accident at the time of the accident, and it is not clear whether the above obabababa used the above o's own request for exemption, and therefore, it can be interpreted that the above 1stababababababababa, which was not directly related to the above o's.

In addition, since a civil trial is not subject to investigation in a criminal case or the facts recognized in its judgment, it is not subject to investigation on the result of the criminal case, and it is not subject to investigation on the result of the trial. However, unless there are any special circumstances, the fact-finding in the criminal trial process is a flexible evidence. Thus, if the evidence in the criminal case is insufficient to take the accident of this case into account as evidence to be considered as the negligence of Nonparty 1, it is not desirable to consider it with interest in the outcome of the criminal case (According to the first, second, and the Supreme Court decision of the above criminal case submitted by the defendant to the supplementary appellate brief of this case, the prosecutor has already been proceeded with the truck of this case beyond the central line at the time of the accident of this case, under the premise that it is carried out with the proceeding of the above truck of this case, under such circumstance, he was indicted as the charge of violation of the duty of care of Nonparty 1, but there is no proof of crime, and the judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted Nonparty 1 as the prosecutor's judgment of this case.

Nevertheless, the court below may not avoid criticism that the evidence alone cited in the judgment without further deliberation as to this point was either failed to exhaust all necessary deliberations or committed a mistake in violation of the rules of evidence. Of the defendant's grounds of appeal, the part pointing this out is with merit.

2. We examine the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the above deceased's loss equivalent to the lost income of the deceased non-party 2 caused by the accident of this case was done as wood in the rural area, and thus, it should be assessed on the basis of the wages of wood as stated in the Agricultural Cooperative Research Month issued by the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation, and it is just in the calculation based on the unit price of government wages for construction wood, and there is no error of incomplete deliberation as pointed out in the grounds of appeal. The Supreme Court decision cited in the grounds of appeal cannot be appropriate to invoke the case. The plaintiff's grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed and remanded to the court below. The plaintiff's appeal of this case is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)