Cases where the determination of evidence is contrary to the rule of experience and deviates from the scope of free evaluation;

Cases where the determination of evidence is contrary to the rule of experience and deviates from the scope of free evaluation;

Article 268 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Limited-at-Law

Cheongju District Court Decision 81No462 delivered on January 8, 1982

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

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, with respect to the facts charged that the defendant driven the vehicle of this case without a license and caused injury to the Red Cross, Nonindicted 6 and 4 weeks in front and that he was on board due to the collision of the street trees of the opposite on the side while driving the vehicle of this case, and Nonindicted Gyeong-hee died on the face of brain, the court below rejected the above facts charged by the defendant's oral statement of the first instance court, the first instance court's legal statement of the same person, and the first instance court's statement of the deceased, the second instance court's opinion of the deceased, and the first instance court's opinion of the deceased, the first instance court's statement of the deceased, the first instance court's statement of the defendant's duty to deal with the affairs of the senior on the street trees of the opposite on the street trees of the opposite on the street trees of the opposite on the vehicle of this case, and the first instance court's statement of the above facts charged, and the first instance court's statement and the examination report of the witness of this case.

2. However, it is found that the court below's measures for the preparation of evidence are not acceptable as follows, even if the remaining evidence is examined by the records, except for the statements by the defendant and the Hongwon, whose interests conflict with each other among each evidence prepared above, and by examining the records.

(1) First of all, the evidence that the court below rejected its credibility, which was the witness of the accident vehicle immediately after the accident, was the police and the prosecutor's statement and the testimony at the court of first and second instances, the driver's seat of the accident vehicle when the person arrives at the accident site, and the defendant requested only the vehicle and the defendant requested relief, and the driver's seat next to the driver's seat lost his consciousness.

However, the court below rejected that it is not able to believe the part of the statement that corresponds to the facts of the defendant's statement made at the time of the police investigation, on the ground that the part that the person stated at the time of the accident when the driver's seat of the above vehicle was violated the facts, but on the other hand, the court below also recognized that the person was driving seat at the time of the accident and the defendant was used in the back seat. It is obvious that it cannot be viewed as the purport of rejecting the above part of the statement as to the vehicle's boarding status of the accident that the person appeared after the accident site arrived at the accident site. Thus, if the above statement was made, it would be in accordance with our rule of law to regard that the person who was on the driver's seat at the time of the accident was not a red source, which was actually used in the back seat, but the defendant was the defendant.

(2) In addition, the court below rejected the part of the statement made by the defendant's eye in favor of the defendant's eye in light of the result of the appraisal by the Park Dong-dong-dong-in in the court below. The summary of the above statement made by the record was flick in the front face of the defendant, and it was flick in the front side of the whole eye and the face of the defendant. While the above red blick blick was flick in the right-hand blick, the left-hand blick, the left-hand blick and slick blick blick, the left-hand blick blick, and the left-hand blick blick, and the driver did not find a favorable blick blick, but did not discover a favorable blick blick blick blick blurg in light of the purport that the above statement made by the court below cannot be seen as a conflict with the above appraisal evidence.

그러나, 위 감정인의 감정결과대로 홍장원이 운전대에 앉아있다가 충돌 순간 머리를 숙였기 때문에 전면유리의 파편에 의한 안면창상을 피할 수 있었다고 가정하더라도, 뒷좌석에 나란히 앉아있던 피고인과 엄기언 중 유독 피고인만이 튕겨나온 전면유리파편을 얼굴에 맞은 이유가 납득되지 않으며, 또 홍장원이 위 감정인의 추측대로 운전대에서 머리를 숙임으로써 전면유리파편에 의한 안면창상은 피할 수 있었다고 하여도, 그 유리파편이 옷에 묻었을 것이 당연한데 뒷좌석에 있던 엄기언과 같이 유리파편이 발견되지 않은 반면 오히려 뒷좌석에 앉았다는 피고인의 옷에 유리파편이 무수히 묻어 있었다는 위 노경정의 진술부분은 어떻게 설명할 것인가? 만일 원심이 이러한 노경정의 사실에 관한 진술부분의 신빙성까지도 위 감정결과에 비추어 배척한 취지라면 이는 자유심증의 범위를 벗어난 증거가치의 판단이라고 아니할 수 없다.

(3) On the following grounds, the lower court’s finding that driving of an accident vehicle at the time of the instant accident was not the Defendant but the Defendant, as follows.

가. 공소외 이차복의 진술서(수사기록 204정)와 1심 법정진술(기록 57정)에 보면 동인은 이 사건 사고 다음날인 1981.1.1 위 홍장원이 입원중인 충주시소재 연세의원에서 위 홍장원이 '깜박 졸았읍니다'라고 되풀이 말하는 것을 들었다는 것이다.

However, the reason behind the accident is that the police officer stated that he was driving at the time of the accident after the accident, and that the above statement was contrary to the truth. In light of the fact that there was a part of the statement that corresponds to the above statement of the Red Cross, according to the fact that the judicial police officer's disposal of affairs, the fact that the police officer's disposal of affairs, and the prosecutor's written statement of this name, the statement of this second class cannot be said to be weak in light of these evidence.

B. Next, the first instance court and the lower court’s testimony of the witness testified to the effect that, when starting from the point of view of the accident, the Red Cross was driven by the Defendant, and the Defendant was seated on the back seat, but at the time, he was in a state of reflect water level, but if the above Red Cross was replaced by the Defendant while driving, the vehicle was stopped, and the driver was not able to change the situation, and thus, the driver was not able to change the driving.

However, the above strict statements made by the police investigation to the effect that the driver was replaced by the driver's office until the second statement was made by the prosecutor, and they changed the above statements from the time of the second statement made by the prosecutor's office. Meanwhile, according to the second statement made by the above prosecutor's office, it was contradictory to the above statements made by the person before and after the accident, that the vehicle involved in the accident did not feel at all a moment sufficient enough to string the street trees, and that the vehicle involved in the accident took a full mind in the hospital after the accident, and that the above statements made by the person are inconsistent with the above statements made by the prosecutor's office before and after the accident. Therefore, it is doubtful that the above statements made by the person are credibility.

C. In addition, according to the results of the appraisal of the causes of traffic accidents by Park Dong-dong in the court below's appraisal, the possibility of driving by the Hong-won at the time of the accident is recognized, and the reasons are as follows: (1) Dong-dong stated that he was first driven by him at the time of the accident, and then reversed it, and (2) Dong-dong's upper part corresponds to the upper part that will be suffered in the event that he was involved in the accident at the time of the accident.

생각컨대, 위(1)의 점은 홍장원 진술의 신빙성에 관한 문제로서 원래 위감정이 사고차량의 변형된 모양, 가로수와의 충돌부위 및 탑승자의 상처부위등에 대한 과학적인 관찰분석을 통하여 그 원인 등을 규명하기 위한 것이었음에 비추어(기록 제167정 참조) 위와 같은 홍장원 진술의 신빙성을 가지고 감정결론의 근거로 삼을 수는 없다고 할 것이고 오직 (2)의 점만이 위 감정결론을 뒷받침하는 근거라고 볼 것인바, 위(2)의 점에 관한 좀더 자세한 감정요지를 보면 운전석 탑승자는(작용, 반작용과 관성에 의한 힘의 방향이 거의 일직선을 이룬 것으로 사료되나 차체후미가 충돌하면서 우측으로 약간 회전되었을 것이므로 사람은 좌측 전면으로 약간 쏠리면서 핸들과 다시방에 충격되었을 것으로 사료됨(운전을 하는 자는 핸들을 꼭 쥔 상태이므로 튕기지 않고 쏠리었을 것임))이라고 전제하고, 홍장원의 상처부위는 (1.하구심부의 좌창은 다시방에, 우측흉부의 좌상은 핸들이 부서지면서 중심부의 핸들대에, 좌측다발성늑골골절(3,4,5,6,7,8번)은 약간 좌로 쏠리면서 핸들 가장자리와 각각 충격되어 발생될 개연성이 있는 상처라고 판정됨 2. 전면 유리파편이 튕겨와서 얼굴에 상처를 내지 않은 것은 브레이크페달을 밟은 점으로 보아 충돌의 위험을 느끼고 브레이크 페달을 밟음과 동시에 고개를 숙였을 개연성이 있다고 판정됨)이라고 설명하고 있다.

그러나, 위 감정인이 추측한대로 운전석에 앉은 홍장원이 충돌의 순간 튕기지 않고 쏠리었음에 불과할 정도로 핸들을 꼭 쥐고 브레이크 페달을 밟았다고 한다면 동인이 핸들 가장자리에 좌측옆구리를 부딪쳐 늑골이 여섯개나 골절되는 다발성늑골골절상을 입었을 것이라는 추정은 선뜻 납득하기 어려운 것이라고 하겠으며, 또 홍장원이 충돌 순간 고개를 숙였으리라는 가정아래 동인의 얼굴에 전면 유리파편에 의한 창상이 없는 것이 반드시 운전석에 앉지 않았다는 근거가 될 수 없다고 하더라도 뒷좌석에 엄기언과 나란히 앉아 있었다는 피고인이 엄기언과는 다르게 얼굴에 전면 유리파편에 의한 다발성열상을 입은 원인이 무엇인가에 대하여 납득할 만한 설명이 없음은 이미 앞에서 지적한 바와 같다. 뿐만 아니라, 위 감정의 자료로 삼은 의사 한수봉 작성의 진단서기재에 의하면 피고인은 이 사고로 안면부 및 안검에 다발성열상과 결막하출혈 및 안구부 이물삽입 등의 상처를 입었음이 인정되고 피고인을 초진한 의사 노경정에 대한 사법경찰관 사무취급 작성의 진술조서에 의하더라도 피고인의 좌측 눈에 전면 유리파편이 박혀있어 이를 제거하였음이 인정되는바, 피고인이 수사기관에서의 변명과 같이 이 사건 충돌 당시 뒷좌석에서 잠을 자다가 충돌하는 것조차 느끼지 못하였다면(수사기록 제54정 참조) 눈감고 잠자던 피고인의 안구에 전면유리파편이 박힌다는 것은 좀체로 납득하기 어려운 일이며, 이보다는 오히려 피고인의 운전석에서 운전하다가 충돌 순간 튕겨나온 유리파편에 위와 같은 상처를 입었다고 보는 것이 경험칙에 합당한 것이라고하겠다.

3. Ultimately, the judgment of the court below is justified in that it is against the empirical rule as seen above and there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by judging evidence beyond the scope of free evaluation of evidence.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case to be tried again is remanded to the Cheongju District Court Panel Division. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)