The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. A summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is found to be negligent in violating the duty of care to protect pedestrians by simply reporting CCTV only and operating the blocking machine, considering the characteristics of the place where the appeal occurred.

In addition, in full view of the statements of the complainants, CCTV images, etc., it is also recognized that the complainant was injured due to the defendant's breach of the above duty of care by the complainants.

Therefore, the crime of occupational injury and injury is established against the defendant.

2. The lower court’s judgment on the grounds of appeal revealed that the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court alone, without any reasonable doubt, had been proven that the complainant was in compliance with the blocking period, while sufficiently explaining the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning in the “2. Judgment”

It is difficult to see that the complainant was in response to the blocking period.

Even if the defendant had occupational experience, the defendant had occupational experience

It is difficult to see

The judgment of innocence was pronounced.

In addition to the circumstances stated by the court below, the following circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence, i.e., ① there is a separate sign prohibiting pedestrian access at the place where the blocking machine is installed (the “the risk of accidents during the operation of the blocking machine,” and the main time is back to the thickness of the pedestrian.

2) The complainant, in the court of the court below, has removed the body of “I am bling with the body” after throwing the garbage in the “I ambling part of the shuttle box because there is a shuttle box in the vicinity of the shuttle box.”

“The Defendant made a statement to the effect that “(see Articles 38 through 40 of the trial record).” Even if so, it was sufficiently recognizable that pedestrians, such as the complainant, passed around the blocking season in advance.

It is difficult to see, 3. The prosecutor argues that the defendant's operation of CCTV only is erroneous.