A. Whether the defendant is admissible as evidence of the actual condition survey document prepared by the assistant judicial police officer in a trial court (negative)

B. As to the intermediate route of the causal relationship between the defendant's negligence and the victim's death, whether the facts different from the facts stated in the indictment are recognized (affirmative)

(a) The photograph of the present situation at the time of the accident according to the statement made by the accused who was a suspect before a judicial police assistant and the fact-finding report prepared by the judicial police assistant, which is the contents of the statement, cannot be deemed as evidence to acknowledge the facts of crime unless the accused denies all the circumstances of the reproduction of the crime in the courtroom.

B. In a case where Defendant’s truck operated too close to the right side of the instant truck in order to overtake the victim’s driver’s right side, and caused the victim’s death by shocking the right side of the instant truck with the rear wheel part of the front right side of the instant truck, the Defendant’s entry in the facts charged that the Defendant caused the victim’s death by causing danger to the victim due to the negligence of the above contents, losing the center, and going beyond the ground is explaining the middle course of the causal relationship with the negligence and death, and if there is a causal relationship between the negligence and the death, the court may judge whether the crime is liable even without any changes in the indictment.

A. Article 312(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 298 of the Criminal Act, and Article 268 of the Criminal Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 89Do1074 Delivered on November 11, 1980

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Seo Sung-sung

Msan District Court Decision 89No94 delivered on July 7, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The defendant's defense counsel's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Among the evidence adopted by the court below in recognizing the criminal facts in its judgment against the defendant, it is clear in the record that the actual investigation report prepared by the judicial police assistant, among the evidence adopted by the court below, is a photograph of the situation at the time of the accident according to the defendant's confession made in the presence of a judicial police assistant, and that all the circumstances of the realization of the crime stated in the actual investigation report in the court of the defendant are denied. Thus, in comparison with the records, it is erroneous that the court below erred in its judgment as a result of finding the criminal facts in its judgment, but it can be sufficiently recognized with the remaining evidence adopted by the court below, so such error does not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and it cannot be viewed that there is a violation of the rules of evidence, the rule of experience, the logic, the lack of reasoning, the lack of reasoning, or the omission of reasoning or the omission of reasoning, such as the theory of the action

2. According to the records, the facts charged in the indictment (the indictment was modified by legitimate procedure among the first instance trial proceedings) are merely a driver of another truck, and the defendant is negligent in proceeding too close to the right side of the victim's new stocks (the age of 65) driving, and caused the victim's death by shocking over the ground and getting the victim to suffer danger and injury. However, without any amendment procedure, the court below acknowledged that the defendant, without any amendment procedure, passed over the above truck too close to the right side of the Oraltob, and the defendant did not go over the above truck with the right side of the above truck, and the defendant did not have any error in the misapprehension of the indictment to 10 meters above 6.3 meters away from the above Oraltoba and to 18 meters away from the above facts charged, and thus, the court below acknowledged that there was no error in the misapprehension of the indictment to 9.4 meters away from the defendant's gross negligence after the amendment of the indictment to 1.

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

Justices Yoon So-young (Presiding Justice)