The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and legal principles) recognizes that the defendant was negligent by not paying due attention to other traffic while entering the intersection where yellow flickering lights, etc. are installed, and if the defendant had done slowly, the defendant could avoid the accident because the time when the vehicle of the defendant would have arrived at the point where the accident occurred if the defendant had done slowly. Thus, the defendant's occupational negligence and the traffic accident are recognized as considerable relation to the defendant.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is a person who is engaged in driving a vehicle in the amount of CM520, and around 13:40 on April 14, 2017, the Defendant driving the above vehicle and driving the two-lane road in the front of the “E” located in D in the former North Jinan-gun, Jinan-gun, Jinan-gun, a speed of about 52 km depending on the speed of 52 km from the front side to the front side of the Jinan-Eup.

그곳은 ‘ ㅏ’ 자형 삼거리로 황색 점멸 신호등이 있는 곳이므로, 자동차의 운전업무에 종사하는 사람에게는 속도를 줄이고 전후방 및 좌우를 잘 살펴 안전하게 운전하여야 할 업무상 주의의무가 있었다.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected this and proceeded to the right left from the left side of the defendant's running direction, and received a part of the right side of the victim F(88 tax) driver's wheel motor bicycle (one sponsor), which was driven by the defendant's driving on the right side, as the front part of the defendant's vehicle.

Ultimately, the Defendant caused the death of the victim by occupational negligence as a multiple organ due to low blood pressure caused by mass blood transfusion at the former North Korean Hospital around April 15, 2017.

B. The lower court determined that the instant traffic accident occurred due to the Defendant’s breach of the duty of care in full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the admitted evidence.