The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (i) the victim was aware of the occurrence of an accident by admitting the occurrence of the accident by taking the head immediately after the accident in this case; (ii) the victim was injured and stayed at the point where the accident occurred; (iii) the accident site is a place where the vehicle of the defendant remains at the time of the accident; (iv) the victim was aware of the fact that the victim was injured due to the contact between the vehicle of the defendant and the victim because the vehicle of the victim was frequently exposed to the vehicle without distinction between the roadway and the sidewalk; and (iv) the victim was aware of the occurrence of the accident and did not take measures against the victim such as identifying whether the damage occurred and the degree of damage.

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecution on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bodily Injury) and on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bodily Injury).

2. Determination

A. In full view of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on the charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, on the ground that it is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, while recognizing the fact that the Defendant was injured, was proven without any reasonable doubt, and that there is no evidence to prove otherwise.

B. In the reality that the provisions of Article 5-3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes related to the Judgment of the Party concerned are not established with sound and reasonable traffic order corresponding to the motor vehicle and the traffic accident certificate, one’s own negligence.