The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding the facts) is as follows: (a) the driver of a motor vehicle driving on an expressway is not obliged to drive the motor vehicle on the expressway in general cases; (b) in this case, the right headlight of the damaged motor vehicle at the time of the accident was turned on, and the surrounding area was not set so far; and (c) the defendant witness that the driven motor vehicle passed by bypassing the damaged motor vehicle; (d) there was a circumstance in which the damaged motor vehicle could be anticipated in advance that the damaged motor vehicle would flow on the lane; and accordingly, (e) the defendant could avoid the collision with the injured motor vehicle if the injured motor vehicle took measures such as prompt reduction or sudden restraint.

Therefore, the defendant's occupational negligence in relation to the accident of this case can be fully recognized.

The judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

2. The lower court’s judgment on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor, based on a detailed reasoning for its determination, has breached the duty of care in driving a vehicle by the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone.

The instant facts charged was acquitted on the ground that it is insufficient to view it and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below in light of the records, such determination by the court below is justified, and there is an error of law by mistake of facts as alleged by the public prosecutor.

subsection (b) of this section.

The prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

3. Accordingly, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.