The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) at the time of the traffic accident as indicated in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “the instant accident”); (b) at the time of the instant accident, articles away from the victim’s cargo vehicle was opened on the road at the time of the instant accident; and (c) the victim’s cargo vehicle was at the time of the instant accident; and (d) if the Defendant did not neglect his duty to stop on the side, it would have been sufficiently discovered that the victim could have been sufficiently discovered; (d) the Defendant was driving on the expressway in one lane, not on the three-lane designated vehicles of the Defendant, but on the expressway; and (e) the Defendant could not completely prevent the occurrence of the instant accident if the Defendant was not on the road.

In full view of all the circumstances, such as the fact that the victim seems not to have reached the result of death, the Defendant was negligent in operating the vehicle and neglecting the right and the right and the right and the right, and caused the death of the victim due to excessive negligence.

must be viewed.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The driver of a motor vehicle who drives an expressway has no duty of care to drive the motor vehicle while preparing for measures, such as rapid stopping, in order to prevent a collision with pedestrians, by predicting that there are pedestrians driving on or crossing the expressway, barring any special circumstances. However, if the driver could anticipate pedestrian in advance at a considerable distance, and if he/she immediately renders such measures, he/she could avoid collision with pedestrians, he/she may be found to be negligent by the driver of the motor vehicle, only if there are special circumstances where he/she could have avoided collision with pedestrians (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do2671, Sept. 5, 200, etc.). (b) The lower court determined by the lower court. The lower court held that the Defendant is 10 km per hour, the restriction of the present case at the time of the instant order.