The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (the misunderstanding of legal principles and factual errors) of the accident in this case, after the accident in this case, the defendant immediately stops and does not confirm whether there is any damage, and it could cause another traffic hazard and trouble by driving away the victim's escape from the defendant.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant not guilty on the charge of this case which did not immediately stop after the occurrence of the accident of this case and take measures to confirm the damage.

Judgment

The purpose of Articles 148 and 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act is to prevent and remove traffic hazards and obstacles and ensure safe and smooth traffic by promptly taking necessary measures, such as removing obstacles caused by a traffic accident, and it does not include provisions for restoring physical damage to victims. In such cases, measures to be taken by a driver on the site shall be taken appropriately according to the circumstances of the accident scene, such as the details of the accident and the degree and degree of the damage, and the degree of such measures shall be taken to the extent ordinarily required in light of sound form.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Do4936 Decided August 23, 2013, etc.). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, ① the instant accident: (a) around October 31, 2014, when the car driven by the Defendant was stopped from the first lane to the stop signal on the two-lane road on October 14, 2014; (b) the Defendant would not proceed with the vehicle despite the change of the vehicle signal while the vehicle was stopped from the first lane to the stop signal on the two-lane road; and (c) the Defendant urged the Defendant to proceed with the vehicle in order for the Defendant to sound the signal at the rear of the vehicle, and KRW 285,178, Jan. 178.