The legitimacy of fact-finding that Obaba is used on the road because it is against the bus vehicles.

If the left-hand side of the driver of the O-to-land driving is cut off to the opposite side of the bus, barring any special circumstances, it is our rule of law and since the driver or the passenger is above the bus's side, it is obvious that the driver or the passenger has suffered the upper side of the bus due to the vehicle's collision with the vehicle's body and there is no trace that the vehicle's body has been faced with the vehicle's body, the fact-finding that the driver or the passenger suffered the upper side of the bus due to the collision with the bus is against the rules of evidence.

Article 268 of the Criminal Act, Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Shin Jin-chul

Gwangju District Court Decision 83No712 delivered on September 19, 1983

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The criminal facts in the statement of the judgment of the court of first instance, cited by the court below, are as follows: "The defendant is driving the bus at about 20 kilometers per hour on December 6, 1981, which is the driver of the city bus No. 5Dayang-si bus No. 7109, belonging to Samyang-si bus, and is driving the bus at about 20 kilometers per hour on December 6, 1981, and is driving the bus at about 50 meters from the opposite direction of the previous bank around the 50 meters long, and the large vehicle under his command is driving at the 90cc after the vehicle of the defendant and the victim was driving the bus at the same direction, the defendant will stop the front and rear left and stop the vehicle and walk it to the safe place with the above large vehicle, and it seems that he will drive the bus at the right side of the road more than 1 week by his own negligence and let the victim go ahead with the above part of the road to prevent the accident."

2. According to the results of the examination by the court of first instance, it is clear that the above accident was 7.5 meters wide and 3.5 meters wide from the center of the road. According to the witness of the court of first instance, the bus operated by the defendant at the time runs on a non-packaged road for the victim's driving, and the point of each of the above vehicles stop after the accident is clear that the bus was above the package, and it is hard to see that it was above the victim's body, and it is hard to see that it was above the victim's body, and that it was above the victim's own body, and it was hard to see that it was above the victim's body, and it was above the victim's own body, and it was hard to see that it was above the victim's own body, and it was above the victim's own body, and it was hard to see that it was above the victim's own body.

Therefore, the above fact-finding by the court below cannot be viewed as a measure against the rules of evidence, and the objection law has influenced the result of the trial, and therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be reversed for this reason.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench to reverse and remand the judgment.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)