The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

As to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, the lower court acquitted the victims of this part of the charges by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, notwithstanding the fact that the Defendant did not need to take measures such as aiding the victims at the time of the instant case, and as long as the victims could have anticipated to suffer bodily injury, they had the intention

Judgment

Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that "a case where a driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding a victim, despite the victim's awareness of the fact that the victim was killed due to an accident" refers to a case where the driver escaped from the scene of an accident before performing his/her duty under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim, and thus causes unafford who caused the accident, as to who caused the accident. Therefore, the crime of escape is established in order to establish the crime of escape, the result of ideas must arise to the victim. Annoyingly, annoying situation to the extent that it is impossible to treat the victim as "injury" under Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act is no longer necessary, and thus it is difficult to view that the victim's health condition was infringed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do3078, Oct. 9, 2008).