A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

except that, for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The Defendant did not have any intention to flee after the occurrence of the remaining traffic accident, where the Defendant did not properly operate brates due to a dispute over driving, but did not intend to move about about 75 meters after the occurrence of the other traffic accident. 2) The Defendant was not in a situation where the Defendant could take relief measures against the victims enclosed by witnesses immediately after the accident.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the assertion of facts. “When a driver of an accident runs away without taking measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim, etc.” refers to a case where the driver of an accident leaves the scene of the accident before performing his/her duty under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, such as aiding the victim, even though he/she knew of the fact that the victim was killed or injured, causing unaccomparably confirmed who caused the accident. The purpose of Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act is to prevent and eliminate traffic risks and obstacles on the road and ensure safe and smooth traffic by preventing and removing them. In such a case, the measures to be taken by the driver shall be appropriately taken according to the specific circumstances, such as the content and degree of the accident, etc., and the degree of damage is ordinarily required in light of sound forms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2018Do4393, Jan. 31, 2019).