The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The judgment of the court below which judged that it is difficult to recognize the intention of escape even though the defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact of leaving the scene due to the intention of escape, in light of the victim's statement and the photo of the damaged vehicle boom, etc., the victim's photo, etc., even though the defendant clearly recognizes the accident of this case.

2. Determination:

A. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the court below determined that the defendant was not guilty on the violation of the Road Traffic Act (unclaimed measures) among the facts charged in this case, and found the defendant not guilty on the ground of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bodily Injury), but the defendant did not have a separate verdict on the charge of not guilty on the charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Special Cases Concerning the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes). The defendant cannot be prosecuted on the charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Traffic Accidents (Special Cases Concerning the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) because it is difficult to conclude that the defendant's criminal intent to flee cannot be proved without any reasonable doubt. In light of the above possibility, the court below found the defendant guilty on the charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Traffic Accidents (Special Cases Concerning the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes).