The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor's summary of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor, since the vehicle of the defendant driving is a village bus with a high driving capacity than a regular car, the time when the defendant found the victim's without permission is highly likely to have been moved before the victim first appeared. If the defendant discovered the victim's moving ahead of his duty on the front side and the right side side, he did not fulfill his duty of care to prevent the traffic accident in this case, but failed to perform such duty of care. The accident site in this case is a place in which pedestrians could anticipate that the vehicle and pedestrians passed over a large and unauthorized crossing of the vehicle without permission. In particular, since the vehicle of the fourth-lane or seven-lane road used at the time of the accident in this case stopped, it can be sufficiently predicted that the defendant, who passed the first-lane road, was a pedestrian driving without permission, and the defendant was stopped or stopped, but failed to perform such duty of care. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of facts, despite the fact that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the defendant's negligence.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the judgment of the court below and the trial court, ① the location of the accident in this case is one of the seven-lane crossings, ② the defendant was driving a village bus in accordance with a straight-line signal at a speed of about 51.5km per hour, ③ the victim was driving a village bus at a speed of about 51.5km per hour, ③ the victim was driving a road at a speed of 40 meters from the crosswalks at the time of the accident in this case, ④ the first lane of the accident in this case is the bus exclusive way, and the second and the third lanes are the two-lanes to turn to the left.