The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence presented by the prosecutor’s summary of the grounds for appeal, it can be acknowledged that the victim had priority to cross-road traffic at the time of the instant accident, as well as that the Defendant discovered or could have discovered the victim before entering the intersection.

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a not-guilty verdict on the facts charged of this case. The court below erred in misunderstanding of facts.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person engaging in driving a B-B vehicle.

On June 27, 2018, the Defendant driven the above vehicle on June 14:42, 2018, and led to the intersection of the distance in front of the D cafeteria located in the Gumnam-gun C from E to F.

However, there is a duty of care to prevent accidents in advance by accurately manipulating the front section and the left and right of the driver of the vehicle, as it is a private intersection where traffic is not controlled, so the driver of the vehicle has a duty of care to prevent accidents.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected this and caused the victim to go beyond the floor by taking HOba of the victim G (n, 66 years old) driving on the right side of the running direction due to negligence.

Ultimately, around July 2, 2018, the Defendant caused the death of the victim by pressure on brain at the Jeonnam University Hospital located in the 42-ro, Dong-gu, Gwangju, Dong-gu, Gwangju, due to the foregoing occupational negligence.

B. According to the results of the examination of evidence by the court below, the following facts are acknowledged: (i) the intersection of the accident site of this case was an intersection where signal, etc. is not installed; (ii) the Defendant was sufficiently fluencing and entering the intersection; and (iii) the Defendant was far more than the middle point of the intersection; and (iv) the victim’s stobane was less than the front line on the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle.

Therefore, the above traffic accident is an unilateral negligence of the victim.