2. Determination

A. According to the appraisal report from August 27, 202 at the time of the instant traffic accident, which was submitted to the station, frequency, and the lower court, the Defendant’s driver’s vehicle served the victim once, while it is recognized that the vehicle was not overfinite at the time of the instant traffic accident, and there is no evidence to prove that the body part of the victim was overfinite by the Defendant’s driver’s vehicle while driving the vehicle back.

In so determining, the lower court did not err.

This part of the prosecutor's assertion of mistake is not accepted.

B. In full view of the various circumstances stated in the reasoning of the judgment and the following circumstances, even if the court below acknowledged that there was a proximate causal relation between the traffic accident of this case and the death of the victim, it is not sufficient to prove that there was a proximate causal relation between such damage and the death of the victim, and thus found the defendant not guilty in the ground of the judgment on the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (Death) since it is not sufficient to prove that there was a proximate causal relation between such damage and the death of the victim, the court below is just and correct, and there is no error of misunderstanding the facts.

This part of the assertion of mistake is not accepted.

- Circumstances in which the trial is added - (1) The testimony of the witness R R who was the autopsy against the victim is that the station and the part of the vehicle of the defendant 2 to be able to be used by the victim, and the volume of his blood transfusion did not reach the degree of causing the death of the victim, and the final judgment of the victim of the war war.