The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The court below erred in misapprehending the legal principles on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the victim's two-wheeled motor vehicle has entered the intersection or entered the intersection at the same time, despite the fact that the victim's two-wheeled motor vehicle entered the intersection after the victim's two-wheeled motor vehicle entered the intersection or nearly at the same time and the defendant violated the duty of care under Article 26 (3) of the Road Traffic Act.

2. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that, in light of the fact that the violation of the duty of care in the instant facts charged is an intersection where traffic control is not performed and that the same vehicle wants to enter the intersection at the same time, the victim’s vehicle did not have entered the intersection at a speed of 31km to 40km per hour prior to the accident of the Defendant vehicle, while the speed immediately preceding the accident of the victim’s two-wheeled vehicle was investigated at the speed of 31km to 20km from 10km to 20km prior to the accident of the victim’s two-wheeled vehicle, it is not based on objective data, but there is no accurate evidence for speed, and the collision point cannot be ruled out the possibility that the Defendant’s vehicle could not have entered the intersection when considering the conflict between the latter part of the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle and the front wheels of the victim’s two-wheeled vehicle.

The judgment of the court below is just and acceptable even if the additional evidence was added in the trial for the defendant, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts as alleged by the prosecutor.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.