All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts (as to the violation of the Road Traffic Act (as to the violation of the Act (amended by Act No. 10 months of imprisonment), since the accident in this case did not occur in a situation after the accident, such as the decline of strike, etc., even if the Defendant left the scene of the accident, it cannot be said that he did not take measures at the time of the occurrence of the accident.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where a driver who has caused a traffic accident as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts without informing the victim of his personal information or contact details in spite of the victim’s restraint, and immediately leaves the scene after the accident, it is difficult to view that the driver has taken necessary measures as prescribed by the Road Traffic Act in that it may cause another traffic danger and obstacle due to the victim’s shock, which is likely to restrain or drive away, as well as the operation of the above escape.

That is, the accident caused the minor physical damage of the damaged vehicle, which was not scattered on the road.

Even if there are no other special circumstances, the same applies to those cases.

(2) In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant: (a) driven a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol of 0.162%; (b) caused the instant accident by taking the victim’s vehicle behind the signal signal at the frontway while driving the vehicle; and (c) the Defendant attempted to leave the scene of the instant accident by overtaking the victim’s vehicle by driving the vehicle immediately after shocking the shock; and (d) the Defendant resumed the victim’s vehicle in front of the left side of the vehicle.