The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (legal scenarios) is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to “necessary measures in the occurrence of a traffic accident” as provided by Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, and without immediately stopping the vehicle and confirming the existence of the damage, the court below acquitted the defendant.

2. The purport of Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act is to prevent and eliminate traffic risks and obstacles that may arise on the road to ensure safe and smooth traffic, and even in the case of operating a vehicle in a place other than the road due to the amendment of the Road Traffic Act as alleged by a snow-office prosecutor, the measures to be taken by the driver should be taken in accordance with the specific circumstances, such as the contents of the accident and the degree of damage.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by each evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., ① the accident in this case is a serious accident that the defendant left his vehicle in the factory site and parked in the factory site; ② the traffic situation at the time of the accident was obstructed or the oil was not lowered into the floor; ③ the victim stated that he had confirmed the Defendant’s vehicle number after driving 5 meters away from the accident (Evidence No. 31 pages), but it is difficult to deem that the Defendant did not drive the vehicle, thereby causing any subsequent traffic danger and injury. Thus, it is deemed that there is no need to take measures to prevent and eliminate traffic danger and obstacles at the time of the accident site to ensure smooth traffic. Thus, the court below was just and the prosecutor’s allegation in this part is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit and Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.