The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below

A. On December 9, 2016, at around 16:35, the Defendant: (a) driven a passenger G (or 74 years old) in front of the Cheongju-gu C road at the Cheongju-si C from the Cheongju-si to the Cheongju-do Cheongju-do. At the same time, the Defendant was running along the three-lanes of the E driving in the same direction. Thus, the Defendant was negligent in driving the said E driver’s vehicle with the duty of care to secure and proceed with the safety distance when the said cargo stops, and due to the negligence of driving the vehicle in an excessive vicinity, while he was negligent in performing the duty of care to ensure and proceed with the safety distance when the said cargo stops; (b) even though the first ton of the said E driving vehicle was found and suspended from the left-hand side, the Defendant’s vehicle was at the 10th ton of the E driving vehicle and the 10th ton of the said cargo at the 10th ton of the E driving vehicle; and (c) the 16th ton ton of the cargo.

(hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant's Vehicle", and the "E vehicle" in which the Defendant was driving, refers to the enclosed and one ton of the freight driven by E as the "E vehicle."

The lower court determined: (a) the testimony of E, which seems to correspond to the facts charged of the instant case, is difficult to have credibility in the position contrary to one another in the position of E and the Defendant; and (b) in light of the circumstances of the accident, the Defendant’s vehicle, despite the stop before the victim, might cause the collision with the victim due to the shock of the E vehicle; (c) while the E vehicle first shocked the victim; and (d) Defendant 1 shocked the E vehicle.