A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (as to the acquittal portion), the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case, despite the fact that the Defendant could have driven under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.104% as stated in this part of the facts charged, is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts.

B. Defendant 1) The instant accident is merely a minor contact accident, and the Defendant did not properly become aware of the accident, and the victim F did not have any injury to the extent easily known in appearance, and in light of the fact that the Defendant and the Defendant were not specially treated, it is not recognized that it was necessary to take measures pursuant to Article 50(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the Victim F, etc., even if the Defendant left the scene of the accident, it does not constitute a crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, even though the Defendant left the scene of the accident, it does not constitute a crime of violating Article 50(1) of the Road Traffic Act, inasmuch as the instant accident does not constitute a crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, even though he escaped from the scene of the accident.

3. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant of the facts charged in this case that the defendant violated the Act on Special Cases and the Road Traffic since the defendant escaped without taking necessary measures such as aiding the victim.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion 1) The relevant legal principles on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (AD) and Article 5-3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific