The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is as follows: (a) the Defendant did not look at whether another person, such as the victim prior to the operation of a set, is around the set, and (b) the victim increased the set while getting up the set; and (c) the victim suffered injury while getting out of the set.

Nevertheless, the facts charged have not been sufficiently proven.

In light of the above, the judgment of the court below acquitted the defendant.

2. The lower court determined that the Defendant could have easily predicted that the damaged person was approaching the set of the instant truck by approaching the set, in the circumstance that the Defendant laid off the truck on the set, as indicated in the facts charged (hereinafter “instant truck”).

It is difficult to see the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, and it is insufficient to recognize that the injured person was on board the instant truck prior to the Defendant’s hosting work. Accordingly, insofar as there is a possibility that the injured person was on board the instant truck by approaching the lifts after the Defendant’s printing work, even if the Defendant breached his duty of care as stated in the facts charged,

Even if there is a substantial relation between that and that of the occurrence of the instant accident.

The defendant was acquitted on the ground that it is difficult to see it.

In light of the following facts and circumstances, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the facts alleged by the prosecutor, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the facts alleged by the prosecutor.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

There was no witness in the situation of the victim's use, and there was no CCTV in the automobile maintenance center as indicated in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter referred to as the "automobile maintenance center of this case"), and there was no CCTV set up in the investigation agency, but no CCTV set up around the scene, and there was no video recording in the street.