The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the evidence presented by the prosecutor in the gist of the grounds for appeal, even though the defendant knew that the victim F (hereinafter “victim”) was shocked with the vehicle driven by the defendant, he could immediately stop, and sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant escaped without aiding and abetting the victim, the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts, and thus, the judgment of the court below is erroneous.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person engaging in driving a motor vehicle Etd.

On January 8, 2013, around 19:15, the Defendant had a duty of care to look at the front side of the STX Research Institute, which is located in the Seocho-gu, Changcheon-do, Changwon-si, and to prevent accidents by accurately manipulating the steering direction and operating the steering system.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected this and got the victim to go on the right side of the victim (the age of 40) who was coming to the right side of the moving direction due to negligence, and got the victim to go to the ground.

Although the Defendant suffered from the left-hand salt panion, etc. by occupational negligence, the Defendant immediately stopped the victim and escaped without taking measures, such as providing relief to the victim, even though he/she suffered around three weeks of medical treatment.

B. From the police to the court of the court below, the Defendant consistently failed to recognize that the Plaintiff was able to view DMB during driving at the time, and on the other hand, argued that the Defendant did not have the intent to commit the crime of escape because he was able to think that the Defendant had shocked the objects such as the plaques on the road while driving.

The defendant is aware of the accident.