Nevertheless, the lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) by misunderstanding the facts, and dismissed the prosecution.

2. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court rendered a judgment dismissing the Defendant on the ground that: (a) the objective fact that the Defendant, despite having injured the victim due to the instant traffic accident and escaping from the accident site without taking necessary measures, such as aiding the victim; or (b) the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone, despite recognizing that the Defendant was aware of having caused the instant traffic accident due to his fault and became aware of having caused the occurrence of a person; (c) it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant had dolusence as to escape by escaping from the accident site; and (d) on the ground that there is no other evidence to acknowledge this, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged on the ground that there was a violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, which is in the relation of the instant crime,

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and its reasoning, the above judgment of the court below is just.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion that there was an error of misconception of facts in the judgment of the court below that dismissed the prosecution on the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, which is related to the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

3. Thus, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit.