The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Although a new traffic accident may occur on the road due to a traffic accident induced by the defendant, since the defendant escaped without taking measures to remove it, the defendant can be found guilty of the violation of the Road Traffic Act (unexploitive Measures). However, the court below acquitted the defendant. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

(a) The purpose of Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act is to prevent and eliminate traffic risks and obstacles that may occur on roads to ensure safe and smooth traffic, not to recover physical damage to victims, and in such cases, measures to be taken by drivers on the road shall be taken appropriately according to the circumstances at the scene of the accident, such as the details of the accident and the degree and degree of damage, and the degree of measures to be taken by drivers on the road means measures to the extent ordinarily required in light of sound form.

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do1503, Jun. 24, 2005).

Based on these legal principles, the court below held that it is difficult to see that there was a need to take special measures or that there was a possibility of causing another traffic danger and obstacle to the safe and smooth flow of traffic by comprehensively taking account of the fact that the defendant or the other vehicle driver C, etc. is not in the location of the traffic accident in this case, the damage of the other vehicle is almost nonexistent, the repair is not possible, and there is no evidence to see that the traffic danger and obstacle has occurred due to the traffic accident in this case, such as spreading over the road due to the traffic accident in this case, etc.