The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal cannot be deemed to have been carried out within the minimum scope where it is inevitable to operate the center line with the Defendant. Thus, the traffic accident in this case occurred not only by the victim but also by the Defendant’s negligence which operated with the center line as above. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant was acquitted, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The court below determined that the defendant's act of entering the opposite lane beyond the median line is in accordance with the traffic method provided in the Road Traffic Act (where the width of the right side of the road provided in Article 13 (4) 4 of the Road Traffic Act is not adequate for the passage of ma, it does not constitute "in cases where the central line is invaded in violation of Article 13 (3) of the Road Traffic Act," and that the direct cause of the traffic accident of this case does not constitute "in cases where the traffic accident of this case was obstructed by the central line in violation of Article 13 (4) of the Road Traffic Act," and it is difficult to find the defendant not guilty of the relation between the defendant and the actual owner of the vehicle in this case on the ground that the direct cause of the traffic accident of this case was not considered as a vehicle of the defendant who was driven in normal course, and there is no other evidence as to the relation between the defendant and the actual owner of the vehicle in this case.

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the victim's Otoba behavior at the time of the accident, the operation speed of the bus operated by the defendant, the degree of the center collision, the point of collision with Otoba, and the direction of Otoba proceeding at the time of the collision.