The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal did not control the victim's access; the victim was able to boom up and the victim was injured; and the causal relationship between the violation of the duty of care and the victim's injury was recognized; however, the judgment of the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case on different premise.

2. The following circumstances duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., ① in order for the victim to load a nose on the vehicle at the workplace of this case, it is essential for the victim to drive the truck and enter the workplace. When loading is completed, the victim, who is the truck driver, was in need of immediate verification, and it is difficult for the victim to readily conclude that the victim's access to the workplace of this case is limited because it is not related to the workplace of this case. ② There is no objective evidence to recognize that the ethyl broadband was not properly integrated, as the court below properly mentioned, (2) there is no possibility that the KNP case of this case can not be ruled out, and therefore, it is difficult to judge that the defendant was negligent in relation to this. ③ Even if the victim did not wear the protective gear, such as safety mother at the time, and even if the victim wears the general protective gear, it is difficult for the victim to avoid damage caused by the accident or to help the driver in the workplace of this case.