The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

(a) In fact, the driver of the Oral Error intentionally led the accident and used the Oral Ba on his own after the accident.

After considering whether the defendant had finished the accident scene, the defendant asked the victim of the accident scene, and then, when the vehicle is pushed ahead, "I am her to stop after going forward," and the other party did not go.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act provides that the driver, etc. shall immediately stop the vehicle and take necessary measures and provide the victim with personal information (referring to his/her name, telephone number, address, etc.) when the vehicle is damaged by traffic, such as driving, etc. of the vehicle.

The purpose of this is to ensure safe and smooth traffic by promptly taking necessary measures, such as removal of obstacles due to traffic accidents (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1292, Oct. 12, 2007). As long as such measures are necessary, it is interpreted that the obligation is imposed on the driver of a vehicle who has caused the traffic accident regardless of the reason for the occurrence of the accident (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do1731, May 24, 2002, etc.). According to the evidence, the vehicle driven by the defendant is the vehicle driving at the right-hand side of the right-hand side of the vehicle via the intersection traffic signal from the first lane on the right-hand side and driving of the victim. The vehicle is directly waiting at the two lanes, the right-hand side of the vehicle and the left-hand side of the vehicle after the accident occurred.