The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant driven his own vehicle to shock the Poter II cargo vehicle and continuously shocked the Grandland car, and during such a series of processes, there was a traffic obstacle on the road.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (not after the accident) against the Poter II cargo vehicles is not established, and there is an error of misunderstanding the facts affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The argument is asserted.

2. Determination as to the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged was around August 3, 2017: (a) around 23:12, the Defendant did not immediately stop and take necessary measures, such as checking the repair cost, even though the part prior to the left-hand side of the Defendant’s Habter II in the upper right-hand side of the Defendant’s driver’s vehicle, which was handed down as part of the front right-hand side of the Defendant’s driver’s vehicle; and (b) damaged the said Hab II in which the amount equivalent to KRW 49,8

B. The lower court, on the records, found that the above Poter II freight is parked, and as long as the accident in this case did not seem to have lost non-products, the lower court determined that the crime of non-measures against the accident under Article 148 of the Road Traffic Act is not established, regardless of whether Article 156 subparagraph 10 of the Road Traffic Act was violated.

(c)

Article 148 of the Road Traffic Act amended by Act No. 14356, Dec. 2, 2016 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than five years or by a fine not exceeding 15 million won.

"In accordance with Article 54 (1) 2 where it is evident that only a motor vehicle which has been parked or stopped has been damaged" in Article 156 (10) of the same Act.