The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal (In fact or misunderstanding of legal principles) is as follows: (a) in light of the circumstance of the instant traffic accident; (b) the Defendant’s predictability and possibility of avoiding the occurrence of the accident; and (c) the principal cause of the victim C’s death, etc., the Defendant was negligent in operating a vehicle more than 25 km/h than the limited speed; (b) if the Defendant was negligent in operating the vehicle in excess of the limited speed (80 km/h); (c) if he was able to avoid collision with the victim if he was able to accurately operate the Defendant’s brake and steering gear in compliance with the limited speed (80 km/h); or (d) if she operated the steering gear in a manner that accurately operated the steering gear in a manner that would compromise the latter or the front part of the victim’s vehicle (in this case, the driver’s seat on which the victim was aboard the accident), the lower court acquitted the Defendant by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

2. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person engaging in driving a passenger car B with the highest PP.

On October 5, 2018, the Defendant driven the above car on October 03:07, and proceeded along the two-lanes from the port of port to the Daegu-Pool Road at a point 46.2 km away from the port of port to the port of Daegu-si.

At the time of the accident, the surface was slick and slicked, and the driver of the vehicle was unable to do so. Therefore, the driver of the vehicle had a duty of care to prevent the accident by accurately manipulating the operation and steering gear and accurately.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected to do so and proceeds at a rapid speed of 104.9km, and the central separation zone is shocked while proceeding at the front of the defendant.