The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the gist of the grounds for appeal, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, is erroneous.

2. Determination

A. The gist of the facts charged is C’s person engaging in D driving service.

On April 24, 2013, the Defendant parked a vehicle in front of the repair shop located at the lower part of the said vehicle, which was operated by the lower part of the Marina bus terminal located in the synthetic Dong of the Masan-si, Changwon-si on April 18:10, 2013, in order to suspend the operation and to repair the vehicle.

In such cases, a person engaged in bus driving service has a duty of care to inform passengers of the fact that he/she parked a vehicle in the vicinity of the Dok and the details of warning any danger in order to repair the vehicle in advance.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected this and caused the victim E (the age of 63) who was lowered from the bus to fall on the floor of a 125 cm high in height without knowing that he was in front of the vehicle.

Accordingly, the Defendant suffered approximately 12 weeks of pressure from the above victim due to the above occupational negligence.

B. The following facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined at the court of the lower judgment, namely, ① the Defendant stated that the distance between the place where the instant bus parked and the Dok was about six meters away, and F, an employee of the bus terminal, made a statement that the instant bus stopped at a distance of about 5-6 meters from the Dok to the Dok at the court of the lower judgment, the victim did not inform the investigative agency of the risk of the Dok even though the instant bus stops at a distance of about 30-40 centimeters from the Dok to the Dok.