The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant asserted the misunderstanding of the fact was examined as to whether the Defendant stopped the vehicle immediately after the instant accident and brought the stoves beyond India, and then did not have any contact with the victim. The Defendant was the s to have sustained the injury on the external dog because it was not the same as the victim suffered the injury.

E requested for accident settlement and completed all necessary measures after the accident.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and thereby finding the Defendant guilty of the facts charged.

B. The lower court’s punishment (one million won a penalty) is too unreasonable, which is unreasonable.

2. The relief measures stipulated in Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts are not necessarily necessary for the driver of the accident himself/herself, it is not necessary for the driver of the accident to do so, through a person under his/her control, or even before leaving the site, that another person’s rescue measures are

However, in the event that the driver of the accident simply asked the witness of the accident to handle the accident and leaves the accident site before the rescue measures are actually taken, unless there are special circumstances, the driver of the accident was in accordance with Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act before leaving the accident site.

In addition, the purpose of Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act is to prevent and eliminate traffic risks and obstacles that occur on the road and ensure safe and smooth traffic. In such cases, measures to be taken by a driver shall be appropriately taken according to the specific circumstances, such as the content of the accident and the degree of damage, and the degree of such damage is ordinarily required in light of sound forms, and such measures include the identification of the driver in relation to the traffic accident, such as the victim or the police officer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do5981, Dec. 9, 2005).