The judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misconception of facts.

2. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant had the ability to take measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act immediately after the accident, comprehensively taking into account the following: (a) the Defendant caused the instant traffic accident; (b) sent the Defendant to an emergency room after having arrived at the scene of the accident; (c) the Defendant moved the emergency room to an emergency room; (d) the Defendant was in mind at the time of arrival in the emergency room; and (d) the Defendant was in an emergency room after a weak time, listen to the circumstances of the accident; and (e) was in the state of the Defendant at the time of drinking.

According to the records, the accident location of this case is recognized as having been in front of the village where the same parking lot was relatively wide, and even if the vehicle involved in this case was in front of the village, it was recognized that the degree of traffic obstruction was not caused. In addition, the defendant's size of the accident of this case recognized by the defendant's oral statement and records, the degree of injury of the defendant, the circumstance where the defendant left the site (the defendant was unable to operate smartphones immediately after the accident of this case, after taking contact with the father of the defendant, lost consciousness after taking care of the defendant's father, and was treated in the emergency room, it seems that the defendant was deprived of consciousness after being treated in the emergency room) is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts

3. If so, the Prosecutor’s appeal is to be made.