Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

2. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the evidence presented by the Prosecutor alone, by taking account of the circumstances as indicated in the judgment, was insufficient to have reasonable doubt as to the fact that the Defendant’s vehicle was shocked by the victim’s erroneous soil contamination, and that the victim suffered bodily injury due to the shock of the victim.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court’s determination is just and acceptable, and as long as there was no new evidence submitted in the first instance court, the circumstances leading the prosecutor to the facts charged do not reach the extent that the reasonable doubt raised by the lower court in relation to this part of the facts charged can be resolved. Thus, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine, as otherwise alleged by the prosecutor.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, under Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the application of the judgment of the court below ex officio, and the relevant provisions of the statutes shall be applicable to the facts.