가. 사실오인 피고인은 자전거도로 중앙선을 침범하여 피고인 운전의 자전거로 피해자 운전의 첼로 자전거를 충격한 사실이 없다.

B. Unreasonable sentencing

2. Determination

가. 사실오인 주장에 대한 판단 원심 및 당심 법원이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거에 의하여 인정할 수 있는 다음의 사실 또는 사정을 종합하면, 피고인이 안전하게 운전하여야 할 업무상 주의의무를 게을리한 채 중앙선을 침범하여 진행한 과실로, 피고인 운전의 자전거로 맞은 편에서 직진하고 있던 피해자 운전의 첼로 자전거를 충격한 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

Defendant’s assertion of mistake is not accepted.

1. The statements in E, D, and F’s investigative agencies and courts, which were or were witnessed at the site at the time of the instant accident, correspond to each other as follows, and their statements are relatively consistent. Thus, their credibility is high.

① At the time of the instant accident, E, which was proceeding in the same direction as the victim at the rear of the victim, stated in the investigative agency that “A, who was asked the Defendant that “I would have caused an accident beyond the central line, by plucking, plucking, and plucking off the hand, the mother and her hand her to go ahead of the central line,” stated that “A was paid an accident beyond the central line.”

② A witness of the instant accident was found to have caused an accident by the mother who was used in the head of the instant accident, which was pushed down by the investigative agency in a narrow mountain.

(2) The Defendant’s bicycle fronter was guilty of having caused the accident by shocking (victim’s) the Defendant’s bicycle fronter beyond the center line, and the Defendant’s mistake was found.

“A bicycle driven by the Defendant” in the court of the court below stated that “A bicycle driven by the Defendant exceeds the center line.”