The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact-finding misunderstanding (the part concerning a measure not to be taken after the acquittal was pronounced) that the Defendant had continuously destroyed the damaged vehicles and escaped without necessary measures, and that the P, a witness of the accident, drive away from the Defendant, etc., the fact that the Defendant did not take necessary measures despite the occurrence of a traffic accident, can be acknowledged.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (three million won in penalty) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Based on the evidence duly adopted and examined, the lower court determined on the assertion of mistake of facts: (a) destroyed the Orala, U.S. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P.

In addition, the damage of the damaged vehicle caused by the above accident is minor, and the softs of the damaged vehicle were scattered on the road.

There is no evidence to determine a person; ② A witness of the accident, who was driving a vehicle on the part of the Defendant, was driving the vehicle, but the serious distance was not far away, she was walking or maring, and there is no evidence to know that the flow of other vehicles at the time was certain; thus, there was a new traffic danger and obstacle due to the escape from the Defendant’s accident site and the trend of P.

Comprehensively taking account of the fact that it is difficult to readily conclude, the Defendant’s failure to take measures to ensure smooth traffic by preventing and removing traffic risks and obstacles was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court ruled that it cannot be seen.

The court below is legitimate.