The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A public prosecution against the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents is instituted.

1. Summary of the prosecutor's grounds for appeal;

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as the degree and degree of injury of the victims of misunderstanding of facts, the content and period of treatment, the degree of collision and shock of vehicles involved in the accident, etc., the victims suffered injury under the Criminal Act due to the traffic accident in this case, and there is a need to take measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victims.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The misapprehension of the legal principle and the violation of the Road Traffic Act due to occupational injury or destruction of property is in substantive concurrent relationship, and the prosecutor did not institute a prosecution on the violation of the Road Traffic Act on the ground that the vehicle originally driven by the defendant is covered by the comprehensive motor vehicle insurance.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles that dismissed the prosecution against the violation of the Road Traffic Act among the charges of the violation of the Road Traffic Act of this case on the ground that the vehicle operated by the defendant was covered by the comprehensive automobile insurance and the victims did not want to be punished against the defendant, and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The circumstances such as the prosecutor’s statement of determination of mistake and the following circumstances recognized by the record as follows: (a) the Defendant consistently stated that “the victim was killed in the vehicle immediately after the instant accident; (b) confirmed the content of the damage with the victim; and (c) in the process, the victim was absent from the scene without the victim’s speech due to a change in signal, and so, the Defendant also left the scene with the knowledge that the damage was insignificant and understood by the victim.