The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Although the Defendant had a duty to take appropriate measures at the time of the instant accident, he did not do so, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, or thereby acquitted the Defendant.

Judgment

The purpose of Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act is to ensure safe and smooth traffic by preventing or removing traffic risks and obstacles that occur on roads, and to ensure safe and smooth traffic, not to recover the physical damage of victims. In such cases, measures to be taken by drivers at the site shall be appropriately taken according to the circumstances in the scene of the accident, such as the details of the accident, the mode and degree of damage, and the degree of such measures shall be measures to the extent ordinarily required in light of sound forms.

(대법원 2005. 6. 24. 선고 2005도1503 판결 등 참조). 원심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하면, 원심 판시와 같은 사정이 인정되는데, 특히 이 사건 사고로 피고인 차량의 범퍼 파편 1개가 피해 차량에 꽂혀있었던 것으로는 보이나, 그 이상으로 비산물이 도로 위에 흩어졌다고 인정할 증거는 없는 점, 피해자는 수사기관에서 사고 당시 ‘쿵’ 소리가 들려 밖에 나와 보니 피해 차량이 파손되어 있었다는 취지로 진술하였는데, 그렇다면 피해자는 피해 차량을 주거지 앞에 주차해 두고 건물 안에 있었기에 피고인을 추격하기는 어려운 상황이었던 것으로 보이는 점 등을 인정할 수 있다.

Therefore, it is difficult to view that there was a need to take special measures to ensure safe and smooth flow of traffic by preventing and removing traffic risks and obstacles after the accident in this case, or that there was a possibility of causing other traffic risks and obstacles. Thus, the defendant left the accident site solely because the defendant did not take any particular measures.