A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the defendant can recognize the fact that the defendant left the scene after causing a traffic accident, but the court below acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 10 million won) is too unfeasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the circumstances revealed through the evidence duly adopted and examined, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the charges on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be recognized as having left the scene as a criminal intent of escape.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and since the prosecutor did not submit new evidence in the trial, it cannot be said that the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts as pointed out by the prosecutor, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the grounds for sentencing indicated in the instant argument and the record of the judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, the lower court appears to have reasonably decided by taking into account the various grounds for sentencing alleged by the prosecutor, and there is no special circumstance to ex post facto change the sentencing.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.