Although the Defendant had a duty to take appropriate measures at the time of the instant accident, he did not do so, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, or thereby acquitted the Defendant.

Judgment

The purpose of Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act is to ensure safe and smooth traffic by preventing or removing traffic risks and obstacles that occur on roads, and to ensure safe and smooth traffic, not to recover the physical damage of victims. In such cases, measures to be taken by drivers at the site shall be appropriately taken according to the circumstances in the scene of the accident, such as the details of the accident, the mode and degree of damage, and the degree of such measures shall be measures to the extent ordinarily required in light of sound forms.

(2) The judgment of the court below is justified in holding that the defendant cannot be punished for a violation of the Road Traffic Act due to the failure to take a measure after the destruction of the defendant, on the ground that the defendant left the scene of the accident without taking a specific measure and there is no possibility of causing any danger and obstacle to traffic safety and smooth traffic safety by preventing and removing traffic danger and obstacle after the accident in this case. Thus, the judgment of the court below that the defendant cannot be punished for a violation of the Road Traffic Act due to the failure to take a measure after the destruction of the defendant, on the ground that the defendant left the scene of the accident.

In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.