The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the facts charged is a person driving a BMW car (hereinafter “accidentd vehicle”).

On December 24, 2018, the Defendant driven an accident vehicle on December 24, 2018, and driven the front of the D intersection C in Ansan-si, while proceeding from the center of the street to the territorial intersection.

In such cases, a person engaged in driving service has a duty of care to safely operate the steering team by accurately operating the steering gear and steering system.

Nevertheless, by negligence, the Defendant neglected this and led the victim E (the 58 years old) to cross the road to the port from the right side of the Defendant’s running direction, and caused the victim to die due to a pactic shock caused by a pactic shock that occurred in G Hospital located in Ansan-si F on January 27, 2019 when he/she received treatment at G Hospital located in Ansan-si F on January 27, 2019.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). Ultimately, the Defendant caused the death of the victim by occupational negligence as above.

2. The judgment of the court below is that the prosecutor presents evidence that facts constituting a crime in criminal proceedings, and the facts constituting a crime must be proved by a judge to have high probability beyond reasonable doubt. If there is no such evidence, even if the defendant is suspected of guilty, the profits of the defendant should be determined by the interests of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do1895, Jun. 30, 2006). The driver of a motor vehicle is sufficient to perform his/her duty of care to the extent that he/she could avoid the outcome in preparation for an ordinary predicted situation, and it cannot be said that he/she has the duty of care to anticipate and prepare for an unexpected and unpredictable occurrence of an inevitable situation.

Supreme Court Decision 85Do833 Decided July 9, 1985, etc.