The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that it was found that the traffic accident caused the collision between the bus which was driven by the defendant without a driver's license and the opposite bus that was driven by the defendant while the center line of the yellow-type vessel was invaded and was rapidly returned to his own bus line, and the traffic accident caused by the defendant's negligence in the course of performing his duties was committed an unlawful act

The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that the above accident occurred due to the concurrence between the defendant's negligence and the failure to take the moving measures on driving skills while discovering the center line of the yellow-line line and the failure to take the moving measures on driving skills, on the ground that the judgment below erred in the incomplete hearing and incomplete hearing, on the ground that the above accident occurred due to the following: (a) as to the traffic accident involving a collision between the bus operated by the co-defendant of the court below, which was done by the defendant without a driver's license, due to the collision between the bus operated by the co-defendant of the court below, and the wing-line of the vehicle at the time of the collision; and (b) whether the operation of the vehicle was possible from the distance at which the defendant could have discovered

Articles 308 and 323 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 268 of the Criminal Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Gyeong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Defendant

Daejeon District Court Decision 90No998 delivered on January 15, 1991

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

We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

1. The summary of the facts of the crime in the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below is as follows: (i) while operating a cross-city bus at a speed of not less than 60km per hour at the time and place indicated in the judgment of the court below, the co-defendants of the court below suffered death or injury to the victims by failing to avoid such injury while driving the above cross-city bus at night and at a relatively high speed; (ii) a bridge was installed on the front side; and (iii) the yellow solid line was installed in the front side, so long as the yellow solid line was at a zone where it is prohibited to overtake the three previous passenger cars without raising the headlight, it was found that the Defendant was at the right time and place of the above bus, and then, at the same time and at the same time, tried to reduce the speed of the above bus from the opposite direction and to prevent the collision of the vehicle at the right time and at the right time and at the right time without the driver's license, the Defendant was at the right time and at the right time and at this point of time and without the right speed of the vehicle.

2. However, even if based on the above facts itself, it cannot be viewed that the defendant's negligence in driving is clearly explained at the time of the collision, since it is not clear whether the bus and the bus are each medianed over each other at the time of the collision.

Even though the above bus was invaded by the central line but returned to the bus line, it is not difficult to recognize the defendant's fault if the above bus collisions on the bus line. However, if the above bus conflicts on the bus bus line without returning to the bus line without returning to the bus line, it is difficult to determine whether the defendant was able to operate the bus at the time when it was possible to operate the bus at the distance which could have discovered the central course of the above bus in advance, without examining whether it was possible to determine whether there was the defendant's fault.

The court below's decision without considering the existence of the defendant's negligence by examining whether the central crime of each of the above vehicles was committed and whether it was possible to operate the bus at the distance where the defendant could have discovered the bus in advance, and it is reasonable to discuss this point as to this point, since it commits the violation of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment due to the lack of reason and insufficient deliberation.

3. Therefore, we reverse and remand the judgment of the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)