The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the facts and legal principles, the court below acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged as to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) against the victim L among the facts charged in this case due to mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, although it could be acknowledged that the Defendant had escaped without taking measures such as aiding the victim’s L, etc

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of suspended sentence for one year of imprisonment, 80 hours of community service order, and 40 hours of attending order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The case where the driver of the accident runs away without taking measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the damaged person under Article 5-3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes to determine the misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the assertion of mistake or misapprehension of the legal principles refers to the case where the driver of the accident runs away from the scene prior to performing his/her duty under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the injured person, although he/she was aware of the fact that the injured person was killed or injured (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do5023, Mar. 28, 2000). The court below held that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to determine who caused the accident at the scene of the accident or who caused the person who caused the accident to break away from the scene at the time of the accident.

For reasons of insufficient recognition, the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes against L of the victim among the facts charged in the instant case is committed.