Cases where the selection of evidence on vehicle collision situation has been wrong;

The court below takes into account the following facts: (a) it is assumed that the left-hand corner of the front truck conflict with the right-hand corner of the rear rapid transit; (b) it is difficult to see that the bus in question conflicts with each other at the right-hand corner of the front bus; (c) it is difficult to see that the bus in question conflicts with each other in the front line with the surface of the bus at the time of the collision; (d) it is erroneous in the rules of evidence by erroneous selection of evidence; and (e) it is difficult to find that the bus and the truck conflict with each other in the front line, in light of the marks and the damaged parts of the bus and the damaged parts of the truck after the collision, the court below's rejection of the statement and the statement of the Lee Jong-man's appraisal report, which is the material to recognize the conflict with the above right-side direction, because it erred in the rules of evidence by misunderstanding the selection of evidence; and (e) it is difficult to recognize that the above bus and the truck were a driver during a stop.

Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

(1) Defendant 1

(2) Defendant 2

Prosecutor (Defendant 2)

Attorney Go-young (Law No. 1)

Daegu District Court Decision 76No2924 delivered on January 21, 1977

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal, Defendant 1, and his defense counsel's grounds of appeal are also examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court rejected each of the evidence admitted as evidence of guilt against Defendant 2, who recognized that the first instance court stopped the driver’s truck on the line driving on the expressway.

(1) First of all, it is insufficient to conclude that the truck was stopped at the time of the accident because it is not sufficient to conclude that the truck was stopped at the time of the accident, because it was not consistent with the front left-hand side of the bus stop and the front-hand side of the bus stop on the premise that there was a collision between the above 2-hand side truck and the front-hand side truck with the above 5-hand side truck with each of the above appraisal statements prepared by the investigative agencies and courts, and that it was difficult to see the degree of shock (the extent of honds) and the truck being pushed down by the reverse 5-hand side truck with the front-hand side of the above appraisal statement, and that it was difficult to see that the truck was stopped at the time of the collision with the front-hand side of the bus stop and the front-hand side of the bus stop, and that the above truck was not skidd by the front-hand side of the inspection and the front-hand side of the bus stop.

The court below, on the third ground of rejecting the appraisal report, etc. of appraiser Lee Chang-chul, stated the above appraisal report as if it was broken down in the engine of the truck, but it merely stated the trend without any clear basis, and the fact that the meter board of the truck was protruding after the accident is likely to be a result of rapid collision, and rather, according to the statement of the collection of evidence in the judicial police officer's preparation of handling of affairs, there was no error in the part of the engine board of the truck.

However, the contents of the above Quarrying are as follows: (a) it is clear that the two or more different parts of the statement of statement on the above Quarrying have not been used for a long time among three different parts of the previous companies fixing the meters of the above truck; and (b) if the above machine is operated without fixing it as safety or death, it would not be possible to drive a motor vehicle because the electric wires inside the meter board are integrated with the vehicle, and it would not be possible to drive the motor vehicle. In addition, according to the records of the protocol of statement of statement (2 times) written by the judicial police officer on the defendant 2, who is the above truck driver, there is no more than any anything in the above Quarrying system like the judgment of the court below, it is clear that the two different parts of the three different parts of the previous car board were not used, and it is recognized that the tape and rubber were used because the boom was not fixed by the boomr, so it is the fact that the above machine was used by the defendant 2's error of the evidence.

(2) Next, the court below held that each of the statements at the investigative agencies and courts in the first instance trial witness, spawn, spawn, spawn, spawn, and spawn, Lee Il-ho were stopped. The court below rejected each of the statements in the first instance trial on the grounds that Defendant 2 did not agree to the preparation of a disposition of judicial police officer's affairs and each of the statements in this case, and that the authenticity in the trial court is not recognized, and thus, it has no admissibility.

However, according to the protocol of the first instance trial, Defendant 2 erred in the judgment of the court below that the above truck was admissible because it was obvious that he consented to the above protocol of statement as evidence, and it was hard to believe the remainder of the evidence, and first, according to the evidence theory that it is difficult for the court below to see that the front truck of the bus was driven by the driver, first, it is only a non-indicted 1 which was on the back 36 pieces, the front line, and 25 seats on the front line, which were on the 3 tin, and it is hard to find that the above truck was stopped at the time of the above accident, and it is hard to find that there was no other evidence that the above truck was under the 5th seat of the front line, and it is hard to find that there was no other evidence that it was under the 5th seat of the above accident at the time of the above accident.

2. In addition, according to the records of the on-site inspection report of gambling style adopted by the court below as evidence and the contents of the accident site hours bound by the records, it can be seen that the above truck was stopped by fasting 2.5m high bus and stopped at a speed of 12m more than that of the rapid bus stops. As such, the court below found that the above truck was driven at a speed of 50 km to the speed of 50m per hour, and that the above truck was driven at a speed of 50 km to 10m or 100m per hour, and that the rear bus was driven at a speed of 30m close to that of the accident site, and that the above truck was parked at a speed of 30m, and that there is no concern for the court below to find that the above truck could not affect the above part of the vehicle at the time of the judgment of the court below, but it did not affect the above 25m height of the vehicle at the time of the judgment of the court below.

Therefore, the original judgment is reversed and remanded in accordance with Articles 371 and 397 of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Hah- Port (Presiding Justice)