The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles) Article 148 of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 14356, Dec. 2, 2016; hereinafter “former Road Traffic Act”) provides punishment to a person who has not taken any measure at the time of occurrence of a traffic accident under Article 54(1) of the former Road Traffic Act, and where it is obvious that only a motor vehicle parked and stopped by the said amended Act has damaged only the motor vehicle, the person who has not provided personal information to the victim is not subject to punishment. This constitutes a case where the act does not constitute a crime due to a change in the existing penal provision after the crime was committed, and thus, a judgment of acquittal should be pronounced on the grounds that the amended Act is applied.

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. In such cases, measures to be taken by the driver of the accident should 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 should be taken to the extent ordinarily required in light of sound form (Supreme Court Decision 2013Do1585 Decided February 27, 2014). (b) The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly adopted and duly examined by the court below, namely, ① the Defendant’s driving of BSM5 vehicles around 16:45 on July 16, 2016, while driving the DaM5 vehicles in the vicinity of Pyeongtaek-gun, Gyeonggi-do, in order to ensure the safe and smooth traffic flow, and the degree of the measures to be taken by the driver of the accident is as follows: