The driver's duty of care for the motor vehicles in transit on the expressway;

It cannot be said that there is a duty of care to expect the vehicle that was driven on the expressway to go to the defendant's running car line because the vehicle that was driven on the expressway is invaded by the sudden center line, and to go to the defendant's running car line.

Article 268 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 74Da1487 delivered on August 19, 1975, 80Da2184 Delivered on September 27, 1983

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Park Jong-ho

Daegu District Court Decision 82No2380 delivered on July 7, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

The facts charged of this case conflict between the victim's vehicle, which was placed in the opposite direction by the driver's negligence on the old Highway, which is the location of the accident where the defendant was in operation of the truck of different coal owned by the defendant. The judgment below rejected the credibility of the evidence in conformity with the above facts charged, and rather recognizes the fact that the victim's vehicle intrudes on the central line of the victim's own central line, thereby conflicting with the defendant's vehicle.

Examining the contents of evidence prepared by the court below in accordance with the records, the above decision of the court below is justified, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete deliberation, or incomplete reasoning.

As above, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant who is driving on the expressway on the expressway is justified, on the ground that it cannot be said that there is a duty of care to expect the vehicle that was driving on the expressway to be a sudden center line and enter the defendant's running car in response thereto.

Ultimately, the appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)