The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in misconception of facts, since the defendant has a duty of care to take such measures as marking a warning sign around the opening area and putting up a proper length line, or installing fences around the opening area, etc.

2. In full view of the residence of the Defendant and the location of the Defendant’s operating camera, the distance and road conditions between the place where the instant accident occurred and the car page, the method of the Defendant raising the horse in order to ensure safety, the circumstances at the time of the accident, the victim’s actions at the time of the accident, and the result of the relevant civil judgment, etc., the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone, as stated in the facts charged, has an objective duty of care to take necessary measures, such as making warning signs to the Defendant so that the Defendant can be seen well in the vicinity as indicated in the instant facts charged, combining the Defendant with a proper length line, or installing pents around the opening.

It is difficult to deem that there was no reasonable doubt that the victim suffered injury as stated in the facts charged in the instant case due to such breach of duty of care.

The prosecutor's assertion is not accepted.

3. Conclusion, pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.