The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the misunderstanding of the fact (non-guilty part) of the violation of the Road Traffic Act (the measures to be taken after an accident), the Defendant was on board the victim D on his/her vehicle, and even if he/she could have known that the damaged vehicle was damaged, the Defendant left the scene as it was, thereby resulting in the risk of causing new traffic obstruction by the trend of the victim, etc.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Undue sentencing (guilty guilty part) that the lower court sentenced the Defendant to the penalty (five million won in penalty) is too uneasy and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined as to the assertion of mistake of the fact. ① The accident in the instant case involving the Defendant’s vehicle following the Defendant’s vehicle in front of the end of the vehicle: (a) although the damaged vehicle was damaged by the accident in front of the Defendant’s vehicle, it did not contain any 348,566 won in the estimate of repair; (b) the degree of damage caused by the collision was minor and the driver D who was on board the damaged vehicle did not have any special injury; (c) the Defendant and D looked at the collision level immediately after the instant accident; (d) exchanged the vehicle number of the Defendant’s vehicle on its cell phone; and (c) the Defendant took the vehicle number of the vehicle on the spot; and (d) the Defendant was on board the vehicle under the agreement with D, and went away from the site; but D was not on the part of the Defendant at the time of the Defendant’s report on the traffic accident or the vehicle number, and did not take measures to ensure smooth removal of the danger caused by the Defendant’s traffic accident.