A. misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles (as to the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act) in the holding of the court below's judgment, the defendant stopped after the accident as stated in paragraph 2 of the criminal facts stated in the judgment of the court below, and confirmed whether the victim did not have any part of the victim. Since the defendant taken measures not to obstruct traffic by moving it out of the road even after the victim's on the part of the victim's on the part of the victim's on the part of the defendant, the defendant committed "necessary measures"

In addition, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty on the different premise is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The purpose of Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act is to prevent and eliminate traffic risks and obstacles on the road, thereby securing safe and smooth traffic, and it is not a provision to recover the physical damage of the victim. In this case, whether a driver has fulfilled necessary measures under the above provision shall be determined depending on whether the driver has fulfilled measures to the extent ordinarily required in our sound form in light of the circumstances of the accident scene, such as the content of the accident, the degree of damage, and the degree of damage (see Supreme Court Decision 93Do2346, Nov. 26, 1993, etc.). (b) Determination of the judgment by the defendant is found to be established by causing the victim's ozone from the vehicle after the accident described in paragraph (2) of the criminal facts in the judgment below.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① the injured party was used beyond the road, and the injured party's Obane Plast.