A. Although the Defendant left the scene after the police officer arrived, the lower court determined that the Defendant left the scene before the arrival of the scene, E was not in need of relief measures, and the Defendant left the site after all the police officers and towing technicians arrived at the site, and thus, even though there was no need to take necessary measures, such as relief measures after the accident, the lower court convicted the Defendant who did not take necessary measures, and thus, convicted him/her of misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. The judgment of the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (1) is reasonable to interpret the duty to take relief measures and duty to report when a traffic accident occurred as provided by Article 50 (1) and (2) of the former Road Traffic Act as being promptly imposed on the driver, etc. when the driver, etc. killed or injured a person or damaged goods due to the traffic of the vehicle, and to take appropriate measures for the relief of the victim, restoration of traffic order, etc. by informing the police officer of the occurrence of the traffic accident of the occurrence of the traffic accident and taking appropriate measures for the restoration of traffic order. As long as the result of the traffic accident is in need of measures for the relief of the victim and restoration of traffic order, it is reasonable to interpret the driver, etc. of the vehicle who caused the traffic accident as imposing such duty regardless of intention, negligence, liability or illegality (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 80Do320, Jun. 23, 198; 90Do978, Sept. 25, 1990).

No such obligations shall be imposed only on the obligation to report.