The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant was an expressway at the place of collision with the victim’s vehicle (hereinafter “the instant accident”), and the secondary collision with the latter vehicle is likely to occur, leaving the scene, and there was no product that obstructs the flow of the vehicle on the road at the time of the instant accident. As such, it was necessary for the Defendant to take measures to ensure smooth traffic by preventing and removing traffic risks and obstacles at the time of leaving the scene of the accident.

It is not possible to see that the insurance company received a self-accident and a substitute accident on the day of this case, and there was no intention to escape.

However, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The purport 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 the road, and not to restore the damage to the victim. In this case, measures to be taken by the driver should be taken according to 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 (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do787, May 14, 2009, etc.). If a driver who caused the traffic accident leaves the site immediately after driving the vehicle without notifying the victim of his/her personal information and contact details despite his/her control, if he/she leaves the site without notifying the victim of his/her personal information and contact details, not only the above escape, but also it may cause other traffic hazards and obstacles.