The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment that acquitted the Defendant on the ground that there was no proof of the relevant crime regarding the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (protruding vehicles) among the facts charged in the instant case

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the record, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors of misapprehending the legal principles as to the escape of a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending

In addition, in a case where it is judged that it is necessary to pronounce innocence on part of the facts charged in relation to the commercial concurrent crimes, it is not necessary to indicate it separately in the text of the final appeal. However, even if it is indicated in the text of the final appeal, it does not constitute an unlawful cause affecting the conclusion of the judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 83Do1288, Aug. 23, 1983; 9Do3003, Dec. 24, 1999). Thus, the ground for final appeal that the court below's maintenance of the first instance judgment that acquitted the defendant on the part of the facts charged as to the violation of the Road Traffic Act (the measures not taken after the accident) and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the escape vehicle) against which a public prosecution has been instituted for the commercial concurrent crimes should not be accepted.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.