도로교통법위반(사고후미조치)
The appeal by the prosecutor is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) led to a significant noise by causing a traffic accident, and E, the owner of a damaged vehicle, has reached 30 meters intention to catch the defendant. Thus, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the violation of the Road Traffic Act (the measures not to be taken after the accident) on the ground that the defendant's act might cause new traffic danger and impediment, but there was an error of law by misunderstanding the fact that there was a possibility
2. Determination
A. On the grounds delineated below, the lower court determined that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that there was a need to take special measures in order to ensure safe and smooth traffic by preventing and removing traffic risks and obstacles after the accident, and that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
According to the police statement of E, although E made a statement that there was about 30 meters in order to find the defendant immediately after the accident of this case, there was no statement about what kind of danger has occurred or could occur. Rather, E made a statement that there was no oil at the site immediately after the defendant caused the accident of this case, and that there was no concern about the second accident.
In addition, even according to on-site photographs, it is difficult to find out circumstances such as fugitives, such as vehicles operated by the defendant or vehicles damaged by the defendant, are scattered on the road due to accidents caused by the defendant.
B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is recognized that the defendant immediately stopped and proceeded without confirming whether the damage occurred, even though the defendant caused a traffic accident, and the judgment of the court below was conducted as is. However, it is minor that ① part of the chief part of the damaged vehicle was loaded (Evidence No. 11), the degree of physical damage is insignificant, and ② the accident in this case is scattered on the road.