The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor's office, the Defendant failed to immediately reduce or refrain from collision with the victim because the Defendant was able to discover the victim's unauthorized crossing within a considerable distance of distance, but did not take measures such as speeding and rapid restraint.

On the contrary, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the fact.

① The victim started without permission from the vehicle line in front of the Defendant’s proceeding and stayed from 8 seconds near the center line of the instant road (Sking eight lanes).

② There was no circumstance that could interfere with the Defendant’s view at the time of the instant case, and the Defendant was able to become aware of the victim from approximately 124 meters (within approximately 87 meters, it is possible to recognize the victim’s movement). Considering the official distance where the Defendant driven at a speed of about 60km per hour, the instant accident was avoided at the same time.

③ Although another vehicle is proceeding on the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle, it does not make it difficult to detect the victim by leaving the view of the Defendant’s vehicle.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a substitute driver, who is engaged in driving of the CBland Kaz.

On November 17, 2015, the Defendant driven the above 00:40 square meters, and proceeded at the speed of about 60km along the intersection from the underground streets to the intersection through which the four-lane roads in front of the 142 ancient village apartment was completed, as in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul.

At the time, there was a night and non-working, so there was a duty of care to prevent accidents in advance by safely driving a person engaged in driving a motor vehicle with the right and the right of the front.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected to do so and proceeded without permission, and the victim D (75) who has crossed without permission from the left side of the defendant's direction is late later.