The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal of this case is not consistent and contradictory to each of the statements of the defendant and H concerning the crime of this case, and it is not sufficiently reliable.

On the other hand, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case, despite the fact that the defendant could have been driving at the time of the accident in this case, is erroneous in the misapprehension of the facts which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination:

A. The lower court determined based on the records, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, i.e., (i) the Defendant, the Defendant’s high school-friendly G with the Defendant, and the Defendant, who was a soldier at the time of the instant accident; and (ii) the Defendant consistently stated from the investigation agency to the court of the lower court that “a vehicle involved in the instant accident was driving at the time of the instant accident,” and (iii) the Defendant stated that “a vehicle involved in the accident was driving at the time of the instant accident at the time of the instant accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the court of the lower court, she stated that “A vehicle involved in the accident at the time of the instant accident is presumed to have been driving by the Defendant in light of the victim’s horses, etc., at the court of the former military court, stated that “B and G were driving the vehicle at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the first time, and immediately after the accident.”