The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to the gist of the grounds for appeal, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, which is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affected the conclusion of the judgment, even though the defendant did not take measures such as aiding and abetting the victim, even though he suffered injury necessary for the victim's medical treatment for three weeks due to shock of the victim's driver's vehicle.

2. Determination

A. Article 5-3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that “When a driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding a victim, etc.” refers to a case where the driver of an accident, despite his knowledge of the fact that the victim was killed due to an accident, leaving the scene of the accident before performing his/her duty under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding a victim, brings about a situation in which

Therefore, in order to establish the crime of escape driving, the result of thought should arise to the victim, and annoying, which is extremely difficult to be assessed as “injury” under Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act, does not need to be treated as an upper part, and thus, if it is difficult to deem that the crime of escape driving infringed on health conditions, the crime is not established (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do3078, Oct. 9, 2008).

The following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., ① the victim did not talk to the defendant that his body was hick due to the accident at the time of the accident in this case, ② the accident site is a road with a width of 6 meters without a center line, and the road is a vehicle and pedestrian at the time of the accident in this case.