A. In light of the fact-finding or misunderstanding of the legal principles (part of innocence), the Defendant was likely to have attempted to attack B, by taking into account the situation at the time of the instant accident, degree of damage, etc.

in this process may have caused danger and impediment to traffic in the process.

As such, the facts charged in relation to the accident with B driving vehicles can be recognized as crimes of violation of the Road Traffic Act (not after the accident).

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of suspended sentence for eight months of imprisonment, two years of community service order, 120 hours of community service order) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding the facts and legal principles, Articles 148 and 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act provide that when goods are damaged due to traffic, such as driving of a vehicle, etc., a driver, etc. shall promptly take necessary measures, such as removal of obstacles caused by traffic accidents, thereby preventing and removing traffic hazards and obstacles, and ensuring safe and smooth traffic flow. In this case, measures to be taken on the spot shall be appropriately taken according to the circumstances of the accident scene, such as the contents of the accident, the degree and degree of damage, etc., and the degree of measures ordinarily required in light of sound form (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1292, Oct. 12, 207, etc.). According to the evidence duly adopted and duly examined by the court below, the defendant secured the right side of the road due to collision between the vehicle and the driver’s license at the time of the traffic accident (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1292, Oct. 12, 2007).