The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the emergency lights, etc. of the Defendant’s vehicle immediately after the instant accident occurred; (b) according to the black image of the damaged vehicle, the Defendant’s vehicle exceeds a considerable portion of the vehicle’s one lane and the damaged vehicle is shocked so that the damaged vehicle can be pushed down to the side; (c) the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle and the damaged vehicle passes across the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle immediately after the instant accident: (a) the driver of the vehicle carrying the vehicle and the damaged vehicle turns up to the horn and speed up to the direction of the Defendant’s vehicle; and (d) the Defendant at the time of the instant accident, at the time of the instant accident, was delayed in transportation of earth and sand and was in a state where “ soon” was avoided, the Defendant

However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is erroneous in misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

2. In full view of the circumstances revealed through the evidence duly adopted and examined, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of the instant case on the ground that it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant, based on the evidence presented by the Prosecutor, has deserted the scene of the instant accident with the awareness of the victim’s injury due to the instant accident, was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

원심이 설시한 사정들과 원심 및 당심에서 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들을 통하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉, 피고인은 이 사건 사고 직후 비상등을 켠 채로 진행했는데, 이는 자신의 차선 변경으로 피해자의 진행이 방해된 것에 대한 미안함을 표시하기 위한 것이었다고 보는 것이 자연스러운 점, 피고인이 이 사건 사고가 발생했음을 인식하고 사고현장을 이탈하려 한 것이라면 굳이 비상등을 켜는 등의 번거로운 행위를 하지 않았을 것으로 보이는 점, 피해 차량이 사고 직후 비상등을 켜고...