The judgment below

Among them, there is a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

1. In full view of the evidence on the grounds of appeal, the court below found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol, could have shocked the damaged vehicle and escaped without relief measures.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment of the prosecutor on the grounds for appeal on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the act of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the act of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) and the violation of the Road Traffic Act (the act of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the act of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) among the facts charged in the instant case under the premise that the prosecutor "I et al. at the time of the instant case" was "C not the defendant at the time of the instant case." The name of the crime against the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the act of violation after the accident) shall be changed to the Article 32 (1) of the Criminal Act (the act of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Road Traffic). The part of the judgment below regarding the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes shall no longer be maintained.

3. In the appellate court's judgment on the violation of the Road Traffic Act among the facts charged in the instant case, the revocation of the prosecution is not allowed, and the violation of the Road Traffic Act among the facts charged for the first time after the permission for modification of the indictment is subject to the appellate court's judgment as they are, as it is,.

On the grounds of appeal, the prosecutor argued that the defendant is a driver who has driven alcohol, but in the trial, I was the driver and the defendant was the driver of the vehicle, and there was a modification of the bill of amendment on the premise that I was the driver. The reason of appeal in this part is true.