The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the violation of the Road Traffic Act (unclaimed Measures after Accidents), there was no need to take measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, since the accident in this case was very insignificant and does not cause any danger and obstacle to traffic.

B. The sentence of the lower court on the Defendant’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (eight months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The purpose of Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act 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 is to be taken to the extent ordinarily required in light of sound culture.

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). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, i.e., the Defendant’s vehicle that was parked on the primary road.