The case that reversed the court below's decision that there was an error of misconception of facts and incomplete hearing due to a violation of the rules of evidence in extracting traffic accidents.

The case that reversed the court below's decision that there was an error of mistake of facts and incomplete hearing due to the violation of the rules of evidence in extracting traffic accident causes.

Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Lee In-bok

Cheongju District Court Decision 84No188 delivered on October 12, 1984

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

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below reversed the judgment of the court below that found the defendant not guilty of the above part of the defendant's statement of the collision with the point of collision ( approximately 2.5 meters away from the point where 19.5 meters away from the front wheeler's seat on the road line) which is recognized as the result of the request for the analysis of the cause of the traffic accident of this case by the Han Jong-gu, which was submitted at the court of the trial, the statement of the result of the request for the analysis of the traffic accident of this case by Han-gu, and the statement of Han-gu, the witness list at the time of the examination, and the collision point of this case which is recognized by the entry of the examination report at the trial site, and the collision point of this case ( approximately 40 meters away from the front gateer's seat on the road, which is presumed by the upper part of the above truck and the front part of the above truck, and found the above part of the defendant's statement of this case to be the front part of the defendant's statement of this case.

However, according to the records, the reason that it was concluded that the collision accident occurred due to the negligence of running the central line by the prosecutor and the police, which the defendant was caused by the negligence, is that there was a trace of half-month shape (Article 16 of the Investigation Record No. 7-1 of a photograph taken at the time of actual investigation by the police) formed on the route of the truck progress, and this is because the defendant was judged that the defendant's riths invaded the central line and caused the collision on the truck vehicle line. Thus, even if the analysis report, which was adopted by the court below as guilty evidence against the defendant, was adopted by the police, it is difficult to find such trace as a photograph, and it was not invoked as evidence of guilt in the court below.

Therefore, since the trace of half-month shape at the time of collision is formed on the truck proceeding route, the ground for prosecution by recognizing that the upper line was invaded by the central line is a collapsed.

On the other hand, despite the fact that it was found by the fact-finding survey report prepared by the court of first instance or the inspection report of the court of first instance, it was difficult to find that there is a trace or feasibility of the above truck caused by the above-mentioned truck's final stopping location (as it was difficult to view that there was a trace or feasibility of the above-mentioned truck in the analysis report which caused the collision with the above truck) of the vehicle's final stopping location (as it was caused by the above-mentioned 15 photograph 5,6,16 photograph 7 of the investigation record) after the collision with the front left-hand gate, it was hard to find that the defendant was not guilty of the damage and degree of the car, and that the defendant was on the right-hand side of the front-hand side of the vehicle's front seat, and that the defendant was not on the front-hand side of the driver's office or prosecutor's office's office's opinion that it was found that there was an incomplete error in the court below's decision that it was not on the front-hand of the vehicle.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Cheongju District Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Jong-sung (Presiding Justice)