The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant left the site without taking necessary measures when a traffic accident occurred under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act.

The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds that the sentence of unfair sentencing (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, community service, 80 hours in compliance driving, and 40 hours in compliance driving) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. 1) The purport of Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act is to prevent and eliminate traffic risks and obstacles on the road, thereby ensuring safe and smooth traffic flow, not to recover victims’ physical damage. In this case, measures to be taken by a driver on the road shall be appropriately taken according to the situation at the scene of the accident, such as the content of the accident, the mode of damage, and the degree of damage, and the degree of measures that are ordinarily required in light of sound form (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do2001, Jun. 28, 2002; 2008Do3078, Oct. 9, 2008; 2009Do787, May 14, 2009). According to the evidence duly adopted by the Defendant on the right side of the vehicle and the vehicle damaged by the driver on the left side of the two-lane road, and each of the two-lanes of the above two-lanes of the vehicle and the vehicle suffered damage after the collision.