The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is as follows: (a) although the defendant was sufficiently aware of the fact that the injured person has no intention to yield the course, he/she sealed the damaged vehicle by delivering it; and (b) he/she was making a sudden stop after changing the course of the damaged vehicle in the future; and (c) the

must be viewed.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged of this case and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined as follows, based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, that is, the Defendant’s front part of the damaged vehicle, i.e., the damaged vehicle from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court, i.e., the front part of the damaged vehicle, as the damaged vehicle gets light from the investigative agency to the lower court

The judgment of the court below is the case where the right of way is judged, and it is argued that the vehicle was at the time of the collision, and that the vehicle was at the time of the accident, and that the two roads were at the time of the accident, the vehicle was fixed and repeated, and the speed of the defendant's vehicle and the damaged vehicle was not fast. ③ Operation of the vehicle without the safety distance seems to be the cause of the accident in this case. ④ Operation of the vehicle without the victim's driving on the road is the right of way that the defendant thought that the victim would yield at the time of the change of the vehicle to the second lane, and the victim was at the time of the change to the second lane and the victim was at the time of the right of way and the right of way was stopped. In light of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the evidence was presented by the prosecutor.