The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, the Defendant, as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, could be found to have inflicted bodily injury on the victim while driving his/her own car, but the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the facts.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged in this case on the ground that the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone, in light of the circumstances as stated in the lower court’s holding, which are acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of the lower court, could not be ruled out that the Defendant’s car was not in progress at the time of

B. Such fact-finding and determination by the court below are justified in light of the following circumstances acknowledged in accordance with the records of this case, namely, E, after the accident of this case, was investigated by an investigative agency after the accident of this case by the Defendant and the Defendant’s vehicle, and there was a consistent argument that the vehicle was stopped at the time of the accident of this case since the vehicle was stated as “the vehicle immediately before the accident of this case.” The photograph taken after the accident of this case, the Defendant’s vehicle was completely opened in a state where the bitle door was completely opened, and the Defendant’s vehicle was not in a situation where there was no circumstance to open a bitle door without opening a bitle door, or there was no new evidence corresponding to the above facts charged in the trial, so it cannot be said that the judgment of the court below erred by misapprehending the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, contrary to the prosecutor’s assertion.

Therefore, the prosecutor's argument is accepted.