The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court rendered a judgment of not guilty on the charge of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (main charge) among the facts charged in the instant case, and dismissed the public prosecution on the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, which is within the scope of the same facts charged (the conjunctive charge).

Only the prosecutor filed an appeal only against the primary charge (non-guilty charge), and the prosecutor did not file an appeal against the dismissal part of the public prosecution on August 28, 2020 stated that the scope of appeal is the whole (misunderstanding of facts). However, on September 1, 2020, the reason for appeal was stated that only the first charge was filed on September 2, 200.

Therefore, the dismissal part of the judgment of the court below is also subject to appeal in accordance with the principle of indivisible appeal, but is in fact excluded from the subject of appeal due to the party's attack and defense, so this part of the judgment below's dismissal conclusion is followed, and it is not again determined in the trial.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts, misunderstanding of the legal principles) the defendant took the lead in the crime of this case by driving a fire-fighting road separated from the lead at the time of the crime of this case. In such a case, the ordinary driver is more careful and driving, and street lamps at the time, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the primary facts charged, even though he knew of the accident and sufficiently recognizes the criminal intent to escape from the site and the criminal intent to escape, is erroneous.

3. As to the facts charged around the instant case, the lower court, while explaining in detail the reasons for the conduct on the 12th page 12 to 3th page 14 of the sentence of the lower judgment, determined that the Defendant was aware solely of the fact that the Defendant had caused a traffic accident.

The lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.