The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, although the court below found the defendant guilty of the defendant's violation of duty of care in the course of his/her duty of care, it erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is a person who is engaged in driving a C-A-hurd motor vehicle.

At around 16:40 on June 26, 2015, the Defendant proceeded along the two-lane roads near the Dondo of the Sinpo-si, Mapo-si, according to the one-lane reservoir as the one-lane reservoir.

At the same time, the two-lanes of bicycles driven by victims E (87 years old) were in progress, so there was a duty of care to thoroughly see the right and the right and the right of the driver of the motor vehicle and to prevent accidents by accurately manipulating the steering direction, brake system, etc. according to the situation.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected the above duty of care and found the victim’s bicycle going from the two lanes on the front side to the first lane, and did not operate the Defendant’s bicycle at the right side part of the Defendant’s passenger car, and caused the victim to die of the victim’s boomed flap, around 04:18 on June 27, 2015.

Ultimately, the Defendant caused the death of the victim by occupational negligence above.

B. The judgment of the court below 1) The defendant alleged in the court below that there was no negligence on the part of the defendant, since the victim changed the course from the two-lanes to the one-lanes to the one-lanes, and the two-lanes to the effect that there was no negligence on the part of the defendant. 2) As to this, the court below can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., the defendant's number at the place