The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to the summary of the grounds for appeal, the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case, although it could sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant caused damage to the victim's car due to occupational negligence as long as the defendant neglected his/her duty at the front time. The court below

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in this case, around 04:00 on 04:00, the Defendant driven CA6 car and proceeded at a speed below the one-lane of the two-lane of the two-lane of the two-lane of the two-lane of the two-lane of the two-lane of the two-lane of the two-lane of the two-lane of the two-lane of the two-lane.

At the same time, traffic congestion has been caused by a vehicle which is a large-populated commercial area.

In this case, there was a duty of care to prevent accidents by safely driving a person engaged in driving of a motor vehicle by reducing speed and driving a motor vehicle in a safe manner.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to perform his duty in the Jeonju-si, which was parked in the two-lanes of the victim FF ( South, 38 years old) in the same direction, and received the part of the panion behind the left-hand part of the oos vehicle in G, which was parked in the two-lanes of the same direction.

The Defendant damaged the car of 8,806,534 won by negligence in the course of performing the above duties. The Defendant damaged the car of coos to the extent of KRW 8,806,534.

B. The lower court determined as follows based on the adopted evidence, i.e., ① the Defendant, while driving a car in the instant case on a normal basis and leaving the car in the direction to the right side of the instant case without any traffic obstacle; ② at the time of Defendant’s driving, H knee and knebbbbbbs, all of which were considered as a whole, and continued to use the Defendant’s right side at the time of the Defendant’s driving.