A. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as the victim’s statement to investigation agencies and the statement of injury diagnosis statement corresponding thereto, the gist of the prosecutor’s grounds for appeal 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of the legal principles (not guilty part) 1) . The victims of the crime of injury under the Criminal Act are sufficiently recognized, as stated in the facts charged, can be sufficiently recognized.

② In light of the background and content of the instant accident, the injury of the victims, degree, and circumstances after the accident, etc., the Defendant, despite recognizing the victims of the instant accident, went away from the scene without taking measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding and abetting the victims, and thus, the Defendant’s criminal intent is recognized.

B) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor in the violation of the Road Traffic Act (i.e., the occurrence of damage to a vehicle driven by the victim D due to the instant accident, and even if the degree of damage is minor, the Defendant’s leaving the scene of the accident without neglecting his own vehicle on the road immediately after the instant accident falls under the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (i.e., the crime of violation of the Act). (ii) The sentence of unfair sentencing (i.e., imprisonment and six months) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. 1) Examining the determination of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the record, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be readily concluded that the victim D and C suffered bodily injury due to the instant accident, and the crime of violation of Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act is aware of the human thoughts and damage to goods.