The case holding that a bus driver has a duty of care to ascertain whether there is an obstacle under the bus body before starting the bus set up at the preceding night.

The case holding that a bus driver has a duty of due care to ascertain whether there is an obstacle before starting a bus parked at the preceding night on the day and following the day;

Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 268 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 88Meu5 Decided September 27, 1988 (Dongun)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 87No2968 delivered on December 10, 1987

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

원심판결 이유에 의하면, 원심은 피고인이 광영학원 소속의 통근버스 운전수로 일하고 있었는데 1986.9.3. 05:40경 서울 동대문구 장안 2동 354 앞길에 세워둔 위 버스에 시동을 걸어 출발함에 있어 진로의 전방 및 좌우를 잘 살피지 아니한 과실로 위 버스 오른쪽 바로 앞 길가에 쓰러져 있던 피해자를 오른쪽 앞바퀴로 역과하여 사망케 하였다는 이 사건 공소사실에 대하여 판단하기를 피해자가 그 무렵 위 버스 오른쪽 바로 앞 길가에 쓰러져 있었다고 인정할 만한 증거가 없고 다만 내세운 증거들에 의하면 그 무렵 피해자는 위 버스의 차체 및 오른쪽 바퀴 바로 앞에 머리를 버스 진행방향의 오른쪽에 두고 비스듬히 쓰러져 있었고 그때가 인적이 없는 어두컴컴한 새벽녘이었던 사실을 인정할 수 있을 뿐인데 이와 같은 경우에 피고인으로서는 그 출발에 앞서 위 버스의 전방 및 좌우를 살펴 진로의 안전만 확인하면 되는 것이지 더 나아가 술에 취한 사람이 사고 전날 21:40경 세워둔 위 버스의 차체 밑에 들어가 잠을 자고 있으리라고 예견하여 그 버스의 차체 밑까지 확인하여야 할 주의의무가 있었다고는 할 수 없고 달리 피고인에게 업무상의 주의의무를 게을리한 과실이 있다고 인정할 만한 증거가 없다고 판시한 다음 피고인에게 무죄를 선고하였다.

However, according to the facts of the judgment below as to the location of the victim at the time of the accident in this case, according to the situation after the accident in this case took place rhythm with the above bus, and according to the facts of the judgment, the victim is presumed to have taken the head under the front wheels of the above bus toward the right side of the bus, and it is difficult to judge whether the defendant was able to find the victim until her getting in and depart from the bus in this case, according to the evidence of the court below, at the time of the accident in this case, it is difficult to find the victim's head at the right side of the above bus in front of the above bus in front of the right side of the above bus, and the chest part of the bus in front of the above bus in front of the right side of the above bus in front of the above bus in this case, it is difficult to find the fact that the victim's chest part was over the victim's chest with the front wheels of the above bus in front of the above bus in this case.

In addition, if the head part of the victim's head was out of the bus's body, the above bus parked at the time immediately preceding the accident in this case, starting from the beginning of the accident without difficulty, and the defendant who was boarding the front of the bus with the right entrance back from the front of the above bus prior to the start of the accident in this case, can easily find the head part of the victim's head, but even if he neglected his duty of care and did not discover the victim, the accident in this case should be deemed to have occurred.

Nevertheless, it cannot be said that the lower court concluded that there was no negligence of the Defendant’s duty of care due to the reason stated in its reasoning, without a final and conclusive hearing as to whether the Defendant could have discovered the victim until the Defendant was aboard and departing from the bus at the time of the instant accident, did not affect the conclusion of the judgment by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, and thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

The argument pointing this out is with merit.

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 Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)