The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000 (O million).

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. The progress of litigation and the scope of adjudication in the party deliberation after remand;

A. (1) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the entire facts charged against the Defendant, and sentenced the Defendant to a suspended sentence of two years (including community service 40 hours) for six months.

(2) Only the Defendant appealed the judgment of the court below for the following reasons, and the court prior to remand rejected the assertion of misunderstanding the legal principles as to the violation of the Road Traffic Act (Refusal of measurement) and reversed the judgment of the court below by accepting the assertion of misunderstanding the legal principles as to the violation of the Road Traffic Act (2) and (3) as to the violation of the Road Traffic Act (non-provision of personal information after causing the accident) and the violation of the Road Traffic Act (non-provision of measurement) as to the violation of the Road Traffic Act (non-provision of personal information after causing the damage). In addition, the court found the Defendant guilty of the violation of the Road Traffic Act and sentenced the Defendant a fine of KRW 3 million and sentenced the Defendant not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that there is no proof of criminal facts as to the violation of the Road Traffic Act (non-

The violation of the Road Traffic Act (not taking a measure after accident): mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles: Violation of the Road Traffic Act (not taking a measure after accident): In the judgment of the court prior to remanding the above case, the prosecutor filed an appeal against the acquittal portion of the reasons, and the defendant filed an appeal against the charge of violation of the Road Traffic Act (not taking a measure after accident).

(4) The Supreme Court held that there was no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the Defendant’s grounds of appeal, and accepted the prosecutor’s grounds of appeal on the grounds that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the necessary measures under Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act for the following reasons. The court below also