The case holding that the judgment of the court below erred by misapprehending the value of evidence when the defendant's statement in the prosecutor's office lacks credibility.

The court below held that the defendant's suspect interrogation statement on the defendant prepared by the prosecutor, which corresponds to the fact that the defendant invadeds the central line, is the same as the defendant spawn over the central line due to the prosecutor's questioning. However, according to the suspect interrogation statement on the defendant prepared by the judicial police assistant which acknowledged the establishment and contents of the defendant, the defendant stated that the defendant's skidmark on the left side of the driver's vehicle at the center line of the accident point bears a view to 1.5 meters away from the left side of the driver's vehicle at the center of the accident point, and where the police officer who conducted on-site inspection after the accident occurred testified that the skidmark of the defendant's driver's vehicle was skidmark on the central line at the second instance of the accident, and if the witness who discovered the accident was involved in the skidmark on the central line at the second instance of the accident, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the determination of the value of evidence.

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

A

Prosecutor

Law Firm B, Attorney C

Daegu District Court Decision 88No621 delivered on December 1, 1988

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

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on May 20, 1987, the court below found the Defendant not guilty of the Defendant’s charges on the ground that: (a) the Defendant driven D1 ton truck around 15:10, around 15:10, and proceeded at a speed of about 20 kilometers per hour in front of the FUll, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, EFUll, toward 5 km away from the north illegal site; (b) the Defendant neglected his duty of care to safely proceed with the front line and the left; (c) the Defendant did not neglect his duty of care to safely proceed with the upper line; and (d) the Defendant did not incur any damage to the upper part of the G victim G (the age 52) running along the central line and proceeded with the upper part of the upper part of the above truck, rear the front part of the lower part of the 125cc quito, and there is no other evidence that the Defendant caused damage to the central prosecutor’s credibility and damage to the upper part.

2. However, according to the protocol of interrogation of the defendant prepared by the court police assistant, the defendant stated that the defendant's skidmark of the defendant's driver's vehicle left side and right side of the driver's vehicle should be viewed as 1.5 % on the center line of the accident location. The first instance court witness I, the police officer who inspected the scene after the accident, stated that the skidmark of the driver's vehicle was skidmark on the center line, and the first instance court witness J, the witness witness of the first instance court, who discovered the accident, stated that the wheel of the driver's vehicle was not at the center line and was about 10 cm away from the center line, and then the second instance court stated that the wheel part of the driver's vehicle was skid on the center line.

In light of the above evidence relations, the defendant's statement at the prosecutor's office that the defendant injured the central line at the time of the accident cannot be deemed to have credibility. If the defendant's vehicle is in conflict with the victim's stobane operated in the opposite opposite line while driving the central line at the time of the accident, it would be difficult to view that the defendant's negligence was not committed at all in the occurrence of the above accident unless there are special circumstances.

Ultimately, the judgment of the court below is without merit because it is erroneous in the judgment of evidence value and affected the conclusion of the judgment.

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 Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice) Lee Jong-won (Presiding Justice)