A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence such as the statement of F and G in the investigation agency, which is an accomplice, against Defendant A, the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime in collusion with F and G can be sufficiently recognized.

B. Considering that Defendant B’s statement in the investigative agency of G, an accomplice, and the fact that the Defendant continues to leave his vehicle to G even after the first intentional accident, the Defendant may fully recognize the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime in collusion with F and G.

C. Therefore, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the Defendants of each of the facts charged in the instant case is erroneous and erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. In a judgment of conviction in a criminal trial, the conviction ought to be based on evidence of probative value, which leads a judge to have a conviction that is beyond a reasonable doubt, to such a degree that the facts charged are true. Therefore, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the degree that such conviction would lead to, the determination ought to be based on the defendant’s benefit even if there

(Supreme Court Decision 2013Do13416 Decided October 24, 2014). As to the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the grounds that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone with the grounds for innocence is insufficient to readily conclude the conviction.

Examining the judgment of the court below on the basis of the above legal principles in comparison with the evidence records, the judgment of the court below is acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding

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.