도로교통법위반(사고후미조치)등
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error and the misapprehension of the legal principle) in this case, immediately after the accident in this case, the victim had concealed the defendant while driving the automobile, and thus, the defendant escaped with awareness of the fact of the accident, and even if the accident occurred after the cargo loaded was subject to the application of Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act as in this case, the court below erred by misapprehending the fact that the defendant was not aware of the fact of the accident, and erred by misapprehending the scope of application of Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act.
2. In the judgment criminal procedure, the evidence that there is a criminal fact must be presented by the prosecutor, and even if the indictment of the defendant is unreasonable and false, it cannot be disadvantageous to the defendant, and the proof of criminal fact should have a judge have a high probability to recognize it so that there is no reasonable doubt, and if there is no evidence to form a conviction to such a degree, there is a doubt of guilt against the defendant even if there is no evidence to establish it.
Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.
(1) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the court below’s decision that acquitted the Defendant of this part of the charges on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to support the Defendant’s escape under the recognition of the fact of the instant accident on the grounds stated in its reasoning, and there is no sufficient evidence to support the Defendant’s escape under the recognition of the fact of the instant accident on the grounds indicated in its reasoning. The court below’s decision is just, and there is no sufficient evidence to support that the degree of proof of the instant charges exceeds the mere suspicion of guilt, and thus, the prosecutor’s aforementioned assertion is without merit, without further examining the Prosecutor’s assertion on the misapprehension of legal principles.
3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit.