The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As the Defendant did not know that the instant accident occurred, there was no intention to violate Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act.

B. The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 4,00,000) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances, the lower court’s determination on the assertion of misunderstanding of the legal doctrine comprehensively adopted and examined or considered, it can be acknowledged that the Defendant escaped without taking necessary measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act, even if he fully aware of the occurrence of the instant accident, even though he/she did not take necessary measures under Article 54(1

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

(1) The instant accident took place on the 8-lane road along which many vehicles pass.

(2) The instant accident was caused by the Defendant’s replacement of the two lanes from the two lanes to the three lanes, and the part of the victim’s left side of the Defendant’s motor vehicle running on the three lanes at the right side of the Defendant’s motor vehicle.

(3) The accident of this case is minor in light of the fact that the victim's left side is lost and the repair cost equivalent to KRW 2,090,000 has occurred.

shall not be deemed to exist.

(4) 피고인은 이 사건 사고가 일어났음에도 멈추지 않고 그대로 진행하였고, 이에 피해 자가 피고인의 자동차를 시속 80km 의 빠른 속도로 따라가면서 경적을 울리고 라이트를 깜빡거렸음에도 불구하고 멈추지 않았다( 증거기록 53 쪽). (5) 한편 피고인은 2014. 11. 8. 경에도 자동차를 운전하던 중 다른 자동차를 들이받아 손괴하고 서도 즉시 정차하여 피해를 확인하지 않았다는 도로 교통법위반( 사고 후미조치) 혐의에 대하여 수사기관에서 수사를 받기도 하였다{ 증거기록 49 쪽, 광주지방 검찰청 순천 지청 2014년 형제 26083호, 다만 위 사건에서 피고인은 도주의 고의가 있었다고...