The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal shows that the Defendant provided education on the cart transport service to A in charge of safety duties, but the Defendant did not properly provide education on the two-person 1 transport doctrine. Thus, the Defendant was negligent in neglecting his duty of care in the course of performing his duties.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts or in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant has a duty of care to educate the employees of the above sales center and assign them to the scope of their duties so that the employees of the sales center may perform their duties safely.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and allowed A, who is not an employee in charge of the cart sector, to perform the work in the cart as described in the facts constituting a crime in the judgment below, and A around December 25, 2015, around 18:30 on the 3rd floor of the D Mart in Singu, Singu, E, with no customers around the 3rd floor of the D Mart, and transported 10 mixed shopping cart from the 4th floor to the 3rd floor, while the cart becomes off.

As a result, the Defendant, in collaboration with A, sustained injury to the victim, such as soft, bones salt, tension, etc., which requires three-day medical treatment by negligence in the course of business as above.

B. The lower court determined as follows based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court: (i) the Defendant, along with A, takes charge of the safety of the store; (ii) the Defendant took charge of the safety of the store as well as other duties, such as cart and U.S. dollars; and (iii) the Defendant took charge of the safety, U.S. dollars, etc. in educating G employees belonging to the store.