The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal (violation of law) has directly caused traffic accidents.

2. The lower court determined that, when the Defendant violated the duty of a front-time watching, the traffic accident could have been avoided if the Defendant breached the duty of a front-time watching, while neglecting the duty of a front-time watching, it is doubtful whether the occurrence of the traffic accident could have been avoided even if the Defendant complied with the signal, and thus, the traffic accident cannot be deemed as a direct cause for the occurrence of the traffic accident.

Considering the distance from the point of departure to the point of occurrence of an accident in violation of the signal, operating hours, speed of the vehicle, etc., the direct cause of the occurrence of the traffic accident is not a violation of the signal obligation in front of the week.

The judgment of the court below is just in its conclusion and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of conclusion is without merit.

The dismissal under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act is dismissed.