The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. D, at the original trial, present as a witness in the summary of the grounds for appeal, has reversed the statement made by the investigative agency in the original trial and made a favorable statement to the defendant. However, barring any special circumstance, it is recognized that D’s statement made by the investigative agency

Comprehensively taking account of the statements made by D in the investigative agency and the remaining evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, the fact that the Defendant had escaped without taking measures such as aiding and abetting the victims of the instant traffic accident, even though the Defendant was found to have caused the instant traffic accident, the lower court sustained injury to the extent that the victims needed to take relief measures.

It was necessary to take additional measures to ensure safe and smooth traffic by preventing or removing traffic risks and obstacles.

The court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Road Traffic (U.S.A.) on the ground that the defendant could not be recognized that he left the scene of the traffic accident in this case while recognizing the above circumstances.

2. Determination

A. In a criminal trial, the burden of proof for the facts constituting an offense prosecuted is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence of probative value that makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it shall be determined with the benefit of the defendant.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do7261, Nov. 10, 201). Moreover, in light of the spirit of substantial direct and psychological principle adopted by the Criminal Procedure Act, the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is clearly erroneous, or the first instance court’s determination is clearly erroneous.