The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) The Defendant cannot establish a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (not after the accident) on the ground that he did not violate the duty of care in driving.

2) The instant accident caused physical damage to the victim.

shall not be deemed to exist.

3) The damage caused by the instant accident is insignificant, and the non-products on roads are not scattered, so the traffic risk and impediment was not caused by the accident.

The Defendant did not stop at the scene of an accident in order to stop at a safe place without impeding traffic flow, and merely left the scene to see an urgent work after driving away from the scene of the accident and completing a report to the police. Thus, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have committed a violation of the Road Traffic Act (after-accident) against the Defendant.

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

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of misapprehension of the legal principle on the assertion that there is no violation of the duty of care, and thus, the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (i.e., determination on the assertion that the crime is not established). Determination on the assertion that the duty of rescue measures and obligation to report when a traffic accident occurred as stipulated under Articles 54(1) and 54(2) of the Road Traffic Act is imposed on the driver, etc. to promptly take necessary measures, such as providing relief to casualties caused by the traffic accident when the driver, etc. is killed or injured by a traffic accident or damaged by an object, and on the other hand, to notify the police officer of the occurrence of the traffic accident and take appropriate measures for the relief of the victim, restoration of traffic order, etc.