The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and misunderstanding the facts, since the place where a traffic accident occurred in the grounds of appeal is not an exclusive vehicle, the defendant is not guilty of the defendant who neglected his/her duty of care in spite of his/her failure to take care of the appearance of pedestrians crossing without permission, preventing accidents, and safe driving.

2. The decision of the court below properly states, as follows: ① The place where a traffic accident occurred is located is about 160 meters away from the end point of the exclusive road for motor vehicles to an expressway; ② the section from the end point of the exclusive road for motor vehicles to the high speed of 1.5 meters is installed, the height of which is about 1.5 meters; ③ there is no crosswalk among them; ③ the place of the accident is about 12-14 lanes from right to right to right to right to right to right to right to right to right to the road; ③ there is a lane that is combined with the adjacent road; ④ the passage is prohibited on the road; ④ the time of the traffic accident is 01:30; the victim is considered to have failed to find the victim because the victim was colored and inspected; ⑤ the defendant complies with the speed limit and the speed limit of the accident at the normal location.

A) A statement can be recognized.

Thus, considering the fact that the Defendant was proceeding as one lane far away from India, and the fact that an underground report was installed at a place less than 50 meters away from India, it seems difficult for the Defendant to expect pedestrians to cross without permission even if the occurrence of a traffic accident is not an exclusive road for automobiles, and even if it was partially anticipated, it would be difficult to prevent the accident.