The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The victim of the misunderstanding of fact was issued a medical certificate stating that the hospital requires two-day medical treatment.

After the accident, the victim was able to complete the dys (nives) and 7 days.

In light of these circumstances, the victim suffered injuries due to the accident of this case.

It is reasonable to see that it is reasonable.

The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too unfluent and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the phrase “when the driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the damaged person,” refers to the case where the driver of an accident, despite having known the fact that the injured person was killed due to the accident, leaving the scene of the accident before performing his/her duty under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the injured person, causes the situation where it is impossible to determine who caused the accident as to who caused the accident, because he/she left the scene of the accident before performing his/her duty under Article

Therefore, in order to establish the above escape driving crime, the result of death and injury must arise to the victim, and the mere danger to life and body is limited, or annoyed, which cannot be evaluated as the "injury" as stipulated in Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act does not need to be treated, and thus, it thereby infringing on health conditions.

In a case where it is difficult to see the above crime, the above crime is not established (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do3078, Oct. 9, 2008). Examining the following facts and circumstances recognized by the record in light of the above legal principles, the victim was injured by a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (i.e., an escape vehicle) on the ground that the injury suffered by the victim of the instant accident does not significantly interfere with his daily life.