The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) falls under the minimum speed among the appraisal sections indicated in the traffic accident analysis report of the Road Traffic Authority (the speed of 80.6 km per hour). According to the traffic accident analysis written above, it is confirmed that the average speed immediately before the accident reaches 86.1km per hour as the average speed of the vehicle is increased as the vehicle's driver's traffic is changed rapidly.

Nevertheless, the court below did not recognize the speed limit as stated in the facts charged, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

2. Determination

A. The burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is to be based on the evidence of probative value that makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the suspicion of guilt is between the defendant, even if there is no such evidence.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do6110, Feb. 11, 2003).

In light of the circumstances stated in its holding, the lower court rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecution on the ground that the evidence presented by the prosecutor alone exceeds the speed of 20.6 km above the speed of 20.6 km as stated in the facts charged, there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and that there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and that the Defendant’s vehicle driving is subscribed to a comprehensive automobile insurance policy.

C. In light of the following circumstances, the lower court’s judgment was duly adopted and examined in comparison with the evidence duly examined by the lower court, and the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and it cannot be deemed that there was an error of misunderstanding of facts, as otherwise alleged by the prosecutor, and thus, the Prosecutor’s assertion is erroneous.