특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주치상)등
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence presented by the prosecutor as to the gist of the grounds for appeal, the court below acknowledged that the defendant was in need of taking measures to rescue the victim at the time of the instant case or to ensure smooth traffic by preventing and removing traffic hazards and obstacles, but did not take such measures, and went away from the scene of the accident due to the criminal intent of the escape. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles
2. Determination
A. The lower court determined that it was difficult to view that the Defendant left the scene of the instant accident without taking such measures as aiding the victim at the time of the instant accident or preventing and removing traffic risks and obstacles, and thus ensuring smooth traffic flow, even though the evidence presented by the prosecutor on the grounds of the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of the instant case was necessary.
1) At the time of the instant accident, the degree of shock on the damaged vehicle was not significant, and the degree of damage of the damaged vehicle was insignificant, and the victim did not say that the Defendant was in the course of demanding repair of the damaged vehicle immediately after the instant accident occurred. (ii) There was no fugitives that interfered with the passage of other vehicles at the instant accident site; (iii) the Defendant and the victim driven each of the instant vehicles to move about about 165 meters away from the site of the instant accident, and then divided them into traffic hazards and obstacles in the process.
3. The defendant's wife promised to cause an accident to the victim at the parking space, informed the name and the telephone number of the defendant, and the defendant's husband and wife moved the vehicle again, while the defendant's wife moved his face and the vehicle.