The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts as to the acquittal portion of the grounds for appeal), the evidence submitted by the prosecutor is sufficiently recognized that the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case by gross negligence.

2. Although the appellate court did not have a new objective reason that could affect the formation of a documentary evidence in its trial process, when it intends to re-examine the first instance court's judgment after ex post facto and ex post facto determination, the first instance court's determination as evidence was clearly erroneous.

There should be reasonable grounds to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is remarkably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules to maintain the judgment as it is, and without such exceptional circumstances, the judgment on the fact-finding of the first instance court should not be reversed without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). There is no objective reason that may affect the formation of a new conviction in the trial, and there is no reasonable ground to deem that maintaining the judgment of the lower court is remarkably unfair in comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the content of the reasoning of the lower court.

3. The prosecutor's appeal of conclusion is without merit, and it is dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(Ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the "Article 166(1)" shall be added to the "Article 164(1)" following the "Article 164(1) of the decision of the court below, and the 9 and 10 acts shall be deleted, and each correction shall be made).