The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (in fact-finding and misapprehension of the legal principle), the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, despite the fact that, at the time of the instant case, the Defendant was not guilty, even though it could have been found that the Defendant had been negligent in performing the duty of care by changing the chassis in the tunnel where the change of the

2. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the ground that the evidence presented by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed as having been occupationally negligent at the time of the instant case.

In light of the circumstances and the following circumstances revealed through the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., (i) the Defendant’s process of changing the tea in the area where the change of the tea was prohibited at the time of the instant case; (ii) the Defendant’s mistake and the occurrence of the instant accident at the time of the instant case did not have a proximate causal relationship between the Defendant’s instant accident; and (iii) the prosecutor, upon instituting the instant public prosecution, stated in the facts charged that “the Defendant breached the occupational duty of care that should not change the tea in the area where the change of the tea was prohibited,” but did not state that “the Defendant breached the occupational duty of care that should not change the tea in the area where the change of the tea was prohibited; and (iii) the Defendant cannot be trusted by the driver of the front wheelchairs who runs the tunnel at the time of the instant case; and (iv) in light of the fact that there was no special circumstance that the Defendant might not have trusted, as stated in the records, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as stated in its judgment.