The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, Defendant driving vehicles were destroyed by destruction of the fleet of this case, and thus, there was no traffic hazard or impediment in the traffic of vehicles and vehicles allowing access to gas stations. In particular, on the road, there was no traffic hazard or impediment, and thus, Defendant did not need to take measures under Article 54 subparagraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act. However, the lower court convicted Defendant of the facts charged in this case solely on the ground that Defendant left the site. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the overall circumstances of the instant case of unfair sentencing, the sentence imposed by the lower court (2 million won of fine, etc.) on the Defendant is unreasonable.

2. The purpose of Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act to determine the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is to prevent and eliminate traffic dangers and obstacles on roads to ensure safe and smooth flow of traffic. In such cases, measures to be taken by drivers shall be taken appropriately according to specific circumstances, such as the content of accidents and the degree of damage, and the degree of such measures shall be taken to the extent ordinarily required in light of sound forms.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant’s vehicle was destroyed by the instant chemical force and destroyed, and the wave was mainly scattered into the gas station access road, but there was a risk of traffic hazards and interference with the traffic, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court. In so doing, there was a danger of traffic hazards and interference.