The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the CCTV photograph (Evidence No. 37-39 of the evidence record) submitted by the prosecutor of the gist of the grounds for appeal, the victim Orala was proceeding ahead of the defendant's vehicle in the revolving Round, and the part behind the right side of the victim Orala and the left side of the defendant's vehicle conflict with the part behind the left side of the defendant's vehicle, and it is judged that the victim entered the road first before the defendant. Thus, the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case, even though it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant's negligence negligent in the defendant's duty of front-time care and caused the death of the victim, and it is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The judgment of the court below is based on the evidence duly adopted and examined, i.e., ① the Defendant has entered a one-lane road of the KTdo surface (hereinafter “accident site road”) after leaving the conference-type street club room with the view to the KT bank surface, and the victim has entered the road of the accident site by driving the above conference-type street in the direction of the Defendant’s proceeding. The driver of a motor vehicle operating the conference-type path is ordinarily trusted that the driver of another motor vehicle has no regular intersection along the direction while leaving the normal intersection and leaving the road and leaving the road. In other words, the Defendant was unable to immediately connect the road with the safety zone in which the yellow structure was installed, and the victim was unable to immediately connect the road to the safety zone in the front of the accident site to the road, and the victim was unable to immediately have entered the center of the road beyond 3rd of the road at the center of the accident.