The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant is a assistant teacher for infant care teachers working in a child care center, who is naturally obligated to protect the lives and safety of infants and to prevent danger, as well as related Acts and subordinate statutes, and as well as the rules of employment at B of child care centers, the defendant should have 14 infants move from the 10th to the 11st floor, and thus, the 11th floor of the building, and if the head and infant care teachers confirmed the fact in advance, as in the case of this case, 14 infants were in existence at the 11th floor, it was not necessary to allow them to use the shot for the 10th floor and the 11th floor, and even if the defendant was unaware of the fact that the 11th floor was in existence, 14 infants were in danger of safety, she should have them move from the stairs to the 111th floor, and she should have the head of the infant and infant care teachers and she should have the head of the son and her immediately take the place as a new ra, her.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not perform all the above duties, and the occurrence of the same accident as stated in the facts charged, so the Defendant is deemed to have been negligent in the course of business. However, the lower court did not err in its duties against the Defendant.