The case holding that there is an error of law in finding the value of evidence as to whether the accident on the crosswalk is an accident.

The case holding that there is an error of law in finding the value of evidence as to whether the accident on the crosswalk is an accident.

Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 3(2)6 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Excellent Young-young

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 89No2261 delivered on September 20, 1989

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

Defendant’s defense counsel’s grounds of appeal

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, while driving the instant accident vehicle at a speed of about 35-40 kilometers per hour at the time and time as indicated in the judgment of the defendant based on macroficial evidence, the court below maintained the judgment of the court of first instance which found that the victim crossinging the crosswalks along the crosswalks at the crosswalks as indicated in the judgment of the court below was inflicted an injury on the brain side, the fluoral department, and the inside and outside of the crosswalks, and rejected the defendant's assertion that the said accident points are not above the crosswalks but beyond the crosswalks.

2. However, among the evidence adopted by the court of first instance maintained by the court below, it cannot be said that the credibility of the instant accident points is doubtful in light of the following evidence: (a) this Decree of the first instance witness who is on the crosswalk; (b) the testimony of the same Kim Yong-use; and (c) this Decree as well as the testimony and inspection of the same sex; and (d) the written statement of the Kim Yong-use room.

First of all, according to each of the above testimony and statement, the victim's walked the crosswalk according to the pedestrian signal of the crosswalk and conflict with the Defendant's driver's vehicle. However, according to the fact-finding report in the process of handling the affairs by judicial police officers employed by the judgment of the first instance and the statement of Kim Yong-place attached thereto, the normal traffic signal at the time is suspended, but since it is recognized that only on-and-off lights were in operation, the victim was crossing according to the pedestrian signal of the crosswalk, each of the above testimony and statement parts are not credibility in this respect.

Then, according to the above fact-finding statement, the point where the victim passed is about 5 meters above the crosswalk, and according to the witness testimony of the first instance court witness witness and the police and the prosecutor's office after the accident scene, the accident scene is about 5 meters away from the crosswalk, and there is no skiing mark or glass wave of the victim at the crosswalk, and the speed of the vehicle is about 30 meters away from the crosswalk, and there is no sound for rapid stop at the time. The victim cannot be seen as the victim's testimony at the point where the accident occurred, and it is difficult to say that the victim's testimony at the point where the accident occurred after the accident occurred, and it is difficult to see that the victim's testimony at the point where the accident occurred after the driver's office, and it is difficult to see that the victim's testimony at the point where the accident occurred after the accident occurred.

Ultimately, the court below did not examine the above evidence relations more closely and judged that the accident of this case was an accident on the crosswalk, which caused the judgment on the value of evidence, and there is a ground to discuss this point.

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)