There is a fault of a driver of Oral Ba in collision with a bicycle that intrudes with a sudden central line at a distance nearest to the trophal line.

When the defendant was found to have been a victim who gets a bicycle or a slope from the opposite side on the opposite side at the distance of the victim (the bus 1 was discovered in the nearest distance because the bus 1 was passed first before the direction of the victim), which led to the defendant's fault in the direction operation, it cannot be said that the defendant violated his duty of care to prevent collision, such as by predicting up until the bicycle enters the front side of the running car.

Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 268 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Busan District Court Decision 83No1280 delivered on September 16, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, based on the evidence adopted by the court below, found the victim who was getting on the bicycle at a speed of about 25 kilometers in speed at the end of 6-7 meters in a strip on which the center line was marked off, using his own car line, and discovered the victim who was driving the bicycle at a speed of about 10 degrees off from 6 meters in a speed of 10 degrees off the opposite vehicle line, due to the error of direction operation by the victim's own bus operation, and the collision between the two at the point at which the center line was 1.8 meters away from the fact that the accident of this case occurred, and the victim was faced with the center line too close to the fact that the accident of this case occurred, and therefore, the defendant could not avoid collision without leaving the center line on the right side of the road, and in such case, the defendant cannot be found guilty on the ground that the victim, who was on the bicycle in the opposite line, did not have a special duty of care to prevent any collision between the defendant and the defendant's driver.

On the other hand, the purport of the judgment of the court below is that the defendant's act of fact-finding and judgment of the court below is justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to occupational negligence, or there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to occupational negligence, in light of the records, since the defendant found the victim at a close distance (the finding of the victim at a close distance is recognized to be due to the fact-finding that the victim passed first before the victim's moving direction) at the same time, and since the victim's moving toward the bus in the front of the victim's moving direction, the victim's moving toward the bus is not affected by the defendant's moving toward the opposite line. Accordingly, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to occupational negligence, which are contrary to the rules of evidence, or there is

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

Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)