The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts) at the court of the court below, the victim C and D stated differently about the extent that the victim shocked the victim's vehicle of one ton freight truck for the Defendant's driving (hereinafter "victim") or the time when the victim confirmed the driver of the damaged vehicle (hereinafter "victim"). The victim C did not go beyond the center line at the time of the instant case.

The statements made by the victims to reverse the statements made by the police that the damaged vehicle went beyond the central line and caused danger to the life. However, it is virtually impossible for the victims to make a statement that the victims specifically consistent with the statements made by the police at the time one year has passed since the date of the occurrence of this case, and since the damaged vehicle continued to receive the damaged vehicle on five consecutive occasions, each victim's statement is acknowledged to be credibility. Since each victim's statement is recognized to be consistent, while the victim operated the damaged vehicle, the court below overlooked the victims that it is difficult to find the victim not guilty of the injury by taking into account the fact that it is difficult for the victims to recognize the fact that the defendant intentionally sustained the damaged vehicle with an intention to do so, in light of the victim's driving experience in about 30 years, and that it is difficult to find the victim guilty of the injury by taking into account the fact that each of the damaged vehicle caused the injury by the victim, such as the fact that the victim caused the injury by his intentional injury.