Nevertheless, the lower court, by misunderstanding the facts, dismissed the instant indictment by deeming it as violating the proviso of Article 3(2)1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, rather than Article 3(1) of the same Act.

2. Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the records, the evidence of this case, based on the judgment of the court below, cannot be deemed to have been driven in violation of the direction of safety signs indicating the prohibition or temporary suspension of traffic under Article 3(2)1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, in order to deduct a vehicle parked on a one-way road. It is just that the court below's decision dismissing the prosecution on the ground that the vehicle driven by the defendant at the time of the accident of this case is covered by comprehensive insurance, and since no new evidence corresponding to the facts charged of this case has been submitted in the trial, it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of facts alleged by the prosecutor, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit.