The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the records of the grounds of appeal, the court below found that the defendant could have predicted the unauthorized crossing of pedestrians in advance, and found the defendant not guilty, by misapprehending the legal principles, even if the defendant's negligence was recognized as not properly operating the Bracks, or by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged of the instant case is as follows: “The Defendant was a person engaged in driving a D high-speed car, and the Defendant was driving the said car at around November 13, 2012 at around 21:10, driving the said car, thereby driving the four-lanes of the five-lane road in Seocheon-si, Nowon-gu, Nowon-gu, Nowon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, in the upper east-do, in the front side of the road. The Defendant caused damage to the victim E (61 years old) who was negligent in neglecting the duty of Jeonju-si and the duty of care to operate the steering the steering system, thereby passing the said road without permission from the left side of the Defendant’s proceeding to the right side from the front part of the said car, and caused the victim’s body to go beyond the bottom of the said car. Ultimately, the Defendant and the Defendant did not properly undergo the boom, thereby causing the death of the victim’s body by negligence on the same day as the above 21st day.”

B. As to this, the lower court stated to the effect that the Defendant observed the victim at around 2-3 meters prior to the accident location, and operated the brake system immediately upon finding the victim. In full view of the overall purport of the statement made by the Defendant and F at the time of the accident, the entire purport of the accident was made by the investigation agency, the time of the accident was night, and the victim was found from the motorway, it is difficult to view that the Defendant violated the duty to keep the victim informed prior to the shock, and accordingly, the Defendant stated to the effect that he was unable to properly operate the brake system at the investigation agency, but the person with an average driving ability.