The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court found the victims guilty of the charge of violating the Road Traffic Act (not guilty of the facts in the judgment of the lower court) among the facts charged in the instant case, but held that the victims suffered “injury” as prescribed by the Criminal Act due to an accident described in the instant facts charged (hereinafter “instant accident”).

Considering that it is insufficient to view it, the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the equivalent) was acquitted for the reason.

However, in full view of the circumstances in which the defendant left the scene after the accident of this case, other statements of the victims, medical certificates corresponding thereto, and the details of the inquiry into facts, etc., the victims suffered injuries for about two weeks of medical treatment due to the accident of this case, but the fact that the defendant escaped without taking necessary measures can be acknowledged.

However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (2 million won in penalty) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The gist of this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a person engaging in driving a vehicle with CM5 vehicles.

On September 21, 2017, the Defendant driven the above car at around 18:20, while driving it at around 18:20, the Defendant driven the road of six-lanes in front of Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-si, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, along two-lanes from the master distance to the center distance of the Corporation.

At this point, there was a central line marked as a white domin line with the permission of the U.S., so in such a case, there was a duty of care to look at the front line properly and safely drive the car and prevent the accident in advance.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to commit this, and she was frightened after the central line of the said U.S. section permitted for the said U.S., and she was frightened by negligence in the front bank, and she was in the U.S.