The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor and the Supreme Court precedents, since it can be acknowledged that the defendant might cause new traffic hazards and obstacles in the process of towing the defendant's vehicle by leaving the defendant without taking any particular measures after the accident in this case, the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (unclaimed measures after the accident) is recognized, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the grounds that the Defendant’s act did not constitute, or could cause, a new traffic danger or obstacle after the accident, and that there was no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below closely by comparing it with the records, such judgment of the court below is just and acceptable.

Furthermore, in full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., (i) no personal damage caused by the instant accident, (ii) material damage is equivalent to 265,000 won in the repair cost of the damaged vehicle, (ii) the accident itself was very insignificant, (iii) the strike or by-products, etc. at the time of the instant accident did not fall on the road; and (iv) even if the Defendant did not immediately stop after the accident, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant did not take measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize it.