The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles)

A. As to the Defendant’s violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (do referred to as the “Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes”), the Defendant was well aware of the fact that the Defendant had frequently attended the scene of the accident, and that the Defendant was driving a stroke at the time.

In light of the fact that it is difficult to see, the shock caused by a traffic accident, the fact that I, a witness, was standing underground to the defendant, and the victim stated that the defendant was fully aware of the accident, unlike the victim's legal statement, the defendant was fully aware of the fact that the victim was injured due to a traffic accident.

B. With respect to the violation of the Road Traffic Act (not after the accident), since the defendant left the scene of a traffic accident, the traffic danger and impediment occurred as he left the road and left the vehicle number of the defendant I, and left the road for only one period.

2. Determination

A. In addition to the circumstances acknowledged by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant was unaware of the fact that the victimized person was injured.

The lower judgment erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is not accepted.

① Whether a defendant is recognized as a crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (main sentence) depends not on the recognition of the occurrence of a traffic accident, but on the recognition of the victim’s injury.

It is insufficient to view that the circumstances alleged by the prosecutor are objective and direct grounds for the perception of the victim's multi-child relationship.

(2) The Defendant’s vehicles take the ice cases.