The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of CCTV images of the grounds for appeal is that there exists a slope where the defendant's vehicle and the victim's vehicle face with each other, leaving several seconds, and the victim was shocked to the extent that the body of the victim can be shaken;

The statement, the Defendant stated that the sound was sound

However, it is difficult to say that the accident was not likely to occur because the person made a statement.

In light of the fact that there is a change, the Defendant was aware of a traffic accident at the time and did not take necessary measures after the accident.

full recognition may be accepted.

However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts of this case is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles.

2. With respect to ① Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes), the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, deemed that the Defendant was unaware of the occurrence of the accident, and thus cannot be recognized as the intention of escape, and ② Violation of the Road Traffic Act (Measures Taken after the accident), was necessary to take measures to ensure safe and smooth traffic at the time of the accident.

As it is difficult to see this part of the facts charged, the facts charged of this case were acquitted on the ground that there is insufficient evidence.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, such as CCTV images, the part of the driver's seat of the victim's vehicle, which the defendant is driving a vehicle and driving a vehicle to turn to the right at the intersection, was shocked by the part of the fenced front of the defendant's vehicle, the defendant's vehicle stops on the opposite side at the time of the accident, and the fact that the defendant's vehicle stops on the opposite side at the time of the accident, and the defendant's accident was damaged to the extent that the shape of the victim's vehicle was considerably damaged. According to the above facts, it is doubtful that the defendant could have known the occurrence of a traffic accident with the victim at the time.