The credibility of testimony to memory the number of an accident vehicle at a rapid speed at night;

In the situation where a witness who had been in the same manner as the victim was faced at night at the time of the accident and at the rapid speed of the taxi that the accident occurred, and the number of the rear number plate of the vehicle is confirmed and memory in the case of the rule of experience. Furthermore, if there is considerable doubt that only Korean is the same time and place of the same other taxi belonging to the same company as that of the other company, among the four numbers of the back number plate at the time of the accident, the credibility of the statement is uncertain if there is a considerable doubt about the accuracy of self-defense, if it is confirmed that only Korean is the same time and place of the same other taxi belonging to the same company as that of the other company.

Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

The defendant is innocent.

The facts charged of this case are as follows: (a) the defendant is a person engaged in driving of Posi (vehicle number omitted) Posi belonging to the Guil-si, and (b) on January 9, 1985, the defendant was driving the above vehicle at around 20:30, which led to the left-hand turn on the four-distance left-hand side in front of the achieved park at the 294, Jung-gu, Daegu-gu, Seoul. In such a case, the defendant, who is engaged in driving, should check the right-hand left-hand side of the way prior to the left-hand turn-hand side of the vehicle, and should turn to the left-hand left-hand side of the victim's right-hand bridge walking on the right-hand side of the above road without any necessary measures such as providing relief to the victim, etc., even though he did not neglect the duty of care to turn to the right-hand side of the vehicle.

The facts of the traffic accident at the above temporary location, where the victim walked as non-indicted 1, which the victim her pro-Japanese as her friendly boarding with the non-indicted 1, recognized by the victim's statement and the victim's non-indicted 2's death diagnosis report, etc. up to the police past the court, and on the same day, the defendant engaged in driving of green Posi under the old taxi (vehicle number omitted). Further, the defendant's legal statement, etc. was recognized by the defendant's legal statement, etc., and the defendant was consistent to the police's first time until the police's first time until the above accident occurred. However, the defendant did not have been able to have been operated as the part of the above place on the day of the accident, and the defendant did not have any more than 3 minutes of the waiting bus near the Dong area and 30 minutes of the waiting bus near the front day, and the defendant cannot get the defendant's non-indicted 20 minutes of the defendant's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted.

The non-indicted 3 goes on the front and front of the 7-round taxi, and entered the 7-round 9-round 2-round 2-round 2-round 3-round 2-round 2-round 2-round 3-round 7-round 3-round 3-round 3-round 3-round 7-round 3-round 1-round 3-round 3-round 1-round 7-round 3-round 1-round 1-round 3-round 1-round 3-round 3-round 1-round 3-round 1-round 3-round 1-round 3-round 3-round 1-round 3-round 1-round 3-round 1-round 3-round 3-round 3-round 3-round 1-round 1-round 1-round 1-round 2-round 3-round 1-round 2-round 3-round 1-round 3-round 1-round 3.

On the other hand, according to Non-Indicted 1's statement that Non-Indicted 1 was about to start 7 and that Non-Indicted 3 was about to start 1's 1's seat at the time of the above accident, Non-Indicted 1's statement that Non-Indicted 3 was about to start 7's seat at the time of the above accident, and Non-Indicted 1's statement that Non-Indicted 4's seat was about to start 7's seat at the time of the accident, and Non-Indicted 1's statement that Non-Indicted 3's seat was about to start 9's seat at the time of the accident, and Non-Indicted 1's statement that Non-Indicted 4's seat was about to start 9's seat at the time of the accident, the Non-Indicted 1's statement that Non-Indicted 3's seat was about to start 1's seat at the time of the accident and that Non-Indicted 1's seat was about to start 4's seat.

In full view of the aforementioned various circumstances, the aforementioned facts are as follows: “The excess of the vehicle that escaped after having escaped from the accident is nothing more than 9731.” However, the mere statement by Nonindicted 3 with less credibility is insufficient to readily conclude that the Defendant of the instant accident is the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the facts charged against the Defendant of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of the Injury and Injury of the instant case are returned to a case where there is no proof of criminal facts, and thus, the Defendant is acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Choi Ki-soo (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge) Kim Sal-hee