Whether there is a duty of care to prepare for a driver who has invadedd a central line but returned to his own lane, and has a duty of care to prepare for a driver who is expected to scam back the central line again by scambling it (negative)

In a case where the driver of a vehicle drives his own car at a speed of about 50 kilometers per hour, he finds that the driver of the vehicle drives the vehicle along the said vehicle at a speed of about 100 meters prior to that of about 30 meters, and finds that the driver of the vehicle drives the vehicle along the said vehicle at a speed of about 30 kilometers per hour, while the driver of the vehicle drives the vehicle at a speed of about 10 kilometers per hour, he does not have a duty of care to look back to the said vehicle at a speed of about 10 meters prior to that of the said vehicle again, while the above Orabab is going back to his own car at a speed of about 10 meters prior to that of the said vehicle.

Article 3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 268 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Kim Chang-sik

Gwangju District Court Decision 84No539 delivered on November 22, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the Defendant’s truck operating its own truck at a speed of about 50 kilometers per hour, and found the Defendant’s truck driving along the Defendant’s vehicle line above about 100 meters prior to the rapid 30 kilometers, and found the Defendant’s truck driving along the Defendant’s vehicle line over a speed of about 30 kilometers per hour, and found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that the Defendant did not have a duty of care to prepare for the collision because the Defendant was her own bus back with the Defendant’s vehicle line, and the Defendant did not err in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence as alleged in the ground of appeal on the ground that, at least 10 meters prior to the rapid speed of the above 10 meters otoba, going back to the Defendant’s own bus line, and the Defendant did not have a duty of care to prepare for the collision. In light of the records, examining the contents of the evidence prepared in accordance with the records, the court below’s judgment is acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as alleged in the process of evidence.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)