The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) is as follows: (a) when considering the following circumstances: (b) the Defendant was living together with the central line, and the Defendant was living together with the U.S. line; (c) the Defendant appears to have living together with the U.S. line in the process of making the U.S. U.S. match; and (d) if the Defendant was living together with the U.S. line in the U.S. section 20 meters after the center line was not invaded, if the traffic accident specified in the facts charged in the instant case (hereinafter “instant accident”) appears to have not occurred, the facts charged in the instant case are found guilty; and (d) the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in the instant case, there

2. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. The lower court, as indicated in its reasoning, has a duty of care to drive the vehicle by preparing an attitude to prevent collision in advance by predicting that the damaged vehicle would drive the vehicle significantly exceeding the restricted speed while the damaged vehicle violated the signal, only with the evidence submitted by the prosecutor.

In addition, on the ground that it is difficult to deem that there is a proximate causal relation between the mistake of the U-turn and the accident of this case, it is difficult to prove that there is a reasonable doubt that there is a proximate causal relation between the fault of the U.S. and the location where the Defendant was installed a white line after the location where the U.S. can be found.

B. 1) At the time of the instant accident, the Defendant recognized the fact that the Defendant was making a U-turn at the location where a white domin line was installed after the number of white domin lines were installed. However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone, which is alone, may lead to conflict with the Defendant by predicting abnormal operation of damaged vehicles.