Whether there is negligence of the defendant in the event that the driver of the Obane, who has been proceeding under the speed of the opposite lane, is faced with the stones on the side of the road and has been protruding and historicaled in the future of the defendant.

On the opposite side of the defendant's running line, the victim went along the right side of the road at approximately 70 kilometers per hour after the opposite side of the vehicle from the opposite line of the defendant's running line, and opened the road above 14 meters prior to the point of accident by shocking the non-indicted (B) where the victim walked the side of the road at approximately 15 meters prior to the point of accident, and going on about 14 meters prior to the road along the side of the road, and coming down on the opposite line with the opposite side of the road. The (A) where the victim was on the opposite line after the opposite line, coming off the opposite line of the vehicle from the center to 1 to 2 meters prior to the defendant's driving on the opposite line, and the victim caused the death of the victim with the opposite side of the vehicle, the victim, who was driving the road on the opposite side of the vehicle, with the opposite direction, cannot be recognized as having fulfilled his duty of care in advance.

Article 268 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Suwon District Court Decision 83No1423 delivered on February 24, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

The circumstances leading up to the occurrence of the accident duly established by the court below are as follows.

In other words, at the time of the accident in this case, the defendant was driving a 5 Gacco 5 3260 km in the 33th malle of the Gyeonggi-do New-ro Si, Chungcheongnam-do at approximately 40 km (60 km a statutory speed) and followed by a large-scale bitr at about 20 km, which he had been driving on the above 40 malle (60 km a statutory speed). The defendant was driving on the opposite line of the mast, after the math, the victim, and the non-indicted 1 mallebbling the road at about 70 km a speed, coming along the right side of the road at about 15 m2 meters prior to the point of the accident, coming away from the front line of the above part of the charges, resulting in the death of the victim and the victim's her front son and the opposite part of the road.

If the facts are the same as above, it cannot be deemed that the victim, who was operating the Otoba on the side of the opposite direction that the defendant operated by the defendant, has a duty of care to drive in advance, by predicting that the victim would run the Otoba on the side of the Atoba in the opposite direction that the defendant was faced with the stones of the Abagral road, and due to the shock, would be protruding

In this regard, the decision of the court below that acquitted the defendant on the ground that the defendant cannot be held liable for negligence is just and there is no violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)