The appeal by the prosecutor is dismissed.

According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, even if the person driving a vehicle C-W-flobage truck (hereinafter “instant cargo vehicle”) at the time of the instant accident is fully recognized, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the Defendant’s innocence, even though it is sufficiently recognized that the person was the Defendant.

Judgment

The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that, in light of the following: (a) the victim D’s investigative agency designated the Defendant as the driver of the instant vehicle and the statement at the lower court court’s trial are inconsistent; (b) D was designated as the driver of the instant truck after the date of the instant accident; (c) the Defendant was locked after preparing bed at the accommodation located in P at the time of the instant accident; and (d) the Defendant was confirmed on November 4, 2012, immediately after the instant accident, through the base station located in the Defendant’s accommodation at the time of the instant accident; and (b) was confirmed on November 4, 2012, which was adjacent to the Defendant’s accommodation, and supported the contents of the instant change, the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone alone was insufficient to prove the facts charged.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment by closely comparing the reasoning of the lower judgment with the record, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is just, and it is not recognized that the prosecutor erred by mistake of facts as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal by the prosecutor is without merit.