The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. It is difficult to deem that there was a need to take necessary measures when a traffic accident under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act occurred as a result of the instant accident, since a vehicle operated by the Defendant, claiming a misunderstanding of facts or a misunderstanding of legal principles, did not focus on the degree of damage of an affected vehicle caused by an accident that causes the victim D to drive (hereinafter “the instant accident”). There is no evidence to acknowledge that the damaged vehicle was scattered, and there is no evidence to prove that the damaged vehicle was scattered on one road, and the traffic of another vehicle does not interfere with the traffic of another vehicle.

In addition, the Defendant, without recognizing the shocking of the damaged vehicle at the time, left the scene of the accident without recognizing the shocking of the damaged vehicle. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that there was an intentional intent to take all necessary measures when the traffic accident occurred.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to "necessary measures in the event of traffic accident" in the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act as provided by Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 1.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The purport of Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act with respect to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is to prevent and eliminate traffic risks and obstacles on the road, thereby ensuring safe and smooth traffic flow, not to restore the victim's damage. In this case, measures to be taken by the driver should be taken according to the specific circumstances, such as the content of the accident and the degree of damage, and the degree of such measures should be taken to the extent ordinarily required in light of sound form

Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2001 Decided June 28, 2002 and Supreme Court Decision 26 February 26, 2009