The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal in this case is that there was no restriction on securing the view of the state of surface and weather at 4 o'clock p.m. The point where the accident in this case occurred, including gas stations and furniture stores around the area where the accident in this case occurred, and there is a pedestrian crossing without permission because the location of the accident in this case is a two-lane road, which is a two-lane road, and the location of the accident in this case is not a lele or decline length, and it does not affect the situation immediately before the accident occurred or at a low time when the driver can find the victim. The defendant's statement that the driver discovered the victim in approximately 10 meters prior to the accident means that the defendant's negligence recognizes the driver's duty of speed or duty of care for an excessive speed of speed of the driver or the duty of care for the moving-out. After finding the victim's fault, the defendant could not take a conflict with the duty of care of the victim in advance if he did not take the duty of care of the victim in advance.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case, which erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. The lower court also asserted the same content as the lower court, and the lower court determined that it was difficult to view that the evidence presented by the prosecutor alone, based on the reasons stated in its reasoning, was insufficient to have proved that the instant accident was caused by the Defendant’s breach of duty of care.

In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is justified, and the prosecutor's assertion is not accepted, since the court below's adopted evidence and examined by the court below are examined closely in light of the records.

3. If so, the Prosecutor’s appeal is to be made.