The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, according to the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts), the Defendant may recognize the fact that he/she escaped without taking measures to the extent normally required even after having committed a traffic accident.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

[The Prosecutor alleged that there was an error of “unfair sentencing” in the judgment of the court below on the first hearing date of the first instance court, but the above assertion cannot be deemed a legitimate ground for appeal due to a new assertion that was filed after the lapse of the period for appeal not timely filed.]

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is a person who is engaged in driving a vehicle of CAWn-turd (hereinafter “instant LAWn-Wn-Wn-Wn-Wn”).

On November 17, 2016, the Defendant driven the above car at a speed of 22:00, and was in front of the apartment house in front of the transferee apartment road, and the two-lanes of the two-lanes among the three-lanes in the vice-gu apartment room.

However, since there are frequent traffic of vehicles, there was a duty of care for a person engaged in driving service to thoroughly and safely operate the vehicle at the front time.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not neglect such duty of care and entered the victim D prosecutor, who changed from the three-lanes to the two-lanes in the indictment, into D, but according to evidence, D is a substitute driver, and the ownership registration of a vehicle is F, and the owner appears to be G as the chief passenger (see the investigation record No. 6, 20, 30 pages). The E-bridge car of driving (hereinafter referred to as the “victim”) is not found in the state, and the Defendant did not shock the part on the right side of the motor vehicle of the furburg.