A. When misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant believed the victim’s horse to the effect that “each person is unlick, matcher,” and there was no escape from the vehicle. The instant traffic accident was extremely insignificant and thus, it was no need to take measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act.

C. The lower court’s sentence on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The purpose of Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act to determine the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is to ensure safe and smooth traffic by preventing and removing traffic risks and obstacles on roads. In such a case, measures to be taken by drivers shall be appropriately taken according to specific circumstances, such as the content of the accident and the degree of damage, and the degree of such measures means measures to the extent ordinarily required in light of sound forms.

Therefore, if a driver who has caused a traffic accident drives a vehicle immediately after the accident without notifying his/her personal information or contact details in spite of his/her control, and leaves the site after the accident, he/she shall not be deemed to have taken necessary measures as prescribed by the above Act in that it may cause another traffic danger and trouble due to the shock driving of the victim who is expected to restrain or drive the vehicle, as well as the operation of the above escape itself, and that it may cause another traffic danger and trouble.

(2) The judgment below is justified. This is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Even if there are no other special circumstances, the same applies to those cases.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do9567, Dec. 27, 2007; 2009Do11057, Feb. 25, 2009). Based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court.