The appeal by the prosecutor is dismissed.

According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (in fact-finding or misapprehension of legal principle), the court below acquitted the defendant about the violation of Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act among the facts charged in this case, and dismissed the prosecution against the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, the court below erred by misapprehending legal principles or erroneous determination of facts, although it was necessary to take measures under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act at the time of the accident, and dismissed the prosecution against the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

Judgment

In light of the purpose of legislation and legal interest protected under Article 5-3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 148 of the Road Traffic Act, the court below held that the accident driver did not take measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as the victim's age, degree and degree of injury, and circumstances after the accident, even if the accident driver does not take measures such as aiding the victim and aiding the victim, the accident in question does not constitute a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes or a violation of the Road Traffic Act, even if the accident driver leaves the place of accident without taking measures such as aiding the victim. The accident in this case is the case where the victim of the vehicle stops after the vehicle, while the victim stops after the vehicle, the accident in this case is a shock of the victim's vehicle, the special shock of the victim's photograph taken by the defendant is not discovered, and the victim also 's back crime might be seen to be shockd by the defendant.