The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds of appeal is that the traffic accident in this case occurred at the point where the damaged 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Therefore, even though the Defendant had a duty of care to give priority to the Oral Seas who entered the intersection, thereby causing injury to the victim. Even if it is unclear whether the damaged Oral Seas entered the intersection of this case, the instant accident occurred due to the Defendant’s breach of duty at the time of the front-time navigation, so the lower court which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case, has erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a person engaged in driving a freight 31.2 tons of freight vehicles.

Around 15:20 on May 2, 2013, the Defendant driven the above cargo vehicle and led the Defendant to go straight ahead of the F veterinary hospital located in G in the wife population E, in the direction of the Defendant.

Since there is no signal signal, there is a duty of care to give priority to the vehicles that enter the intersection at the time of operation.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so and got off the part of the victim G (the 75-year-old) driving, who is going to the right side of the said cargo vehicle, due to negligence on the part of the Defendant, at the right side of the said cargo vehicle.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim due to the above occupational negligence due to the cerebral cerebral cerebral le of permanent disability.

B. The lower court determined that the instant traffic accident site was an intersection where traffic is not controlled, and if the victim first entered the intersection, the Defendant is first the Defendant.