The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows. Defendant B appeared at the police and the prosecution according to Defendant A’s teacher, and stated to the effect that “in the case of operating the instant vehicle, not Defendant A, but Defendant B C.” The investigative agency investigated witnesses several times to clarify the actual driver and examined the Defendants.

Therefore, since Defendant B made a false statement actively and the result leads to the degree that the investigative agency could make it difficult or impossible to find an actual driver, the offender also commits a crime against the Defendants and the crime of aiding and abetting the Defendants.

2. Determination

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant A, the lower court convicted Defendant A of the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving alcohol) and the violation of the Road Traffic Act (not taking measures after the accident), and acquitted Defendant A of the violation of the Road Traffic Act.

Although a prosecutor filed an appeal against the acquittal portion, the judgment of a party member against a defendant A is limited to the acquittal portion among the judgment of the court below, since the appeal against the acquittal portion is not filed by both parties.

B. Based on the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that Defendant B’s act and Defendant B, among the facts charged against Defendant A, were not guilty inasmuch as it is difficult to recognize that Defendant B’s act constitutes an abuse of right of defense by causing serious interference with criminal justice and thus making it difficult to recognize that Defendant A’s act constitutes an abuse of right of defense.

The reasoning of the judgment below's acquittal and the evidence of this case shall be examined closely, and a witness has made a false statement at an investigative agency.

There is no provision to punish him or to punish him as a disturbance of investigation.