The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The duty to take relief measures and duty to report when a traffic accident occurs under Article 54(1) and (2) of the Road Traffic Act shall be imposed in such a manner that the driver, etc. promptly takes necessary measures, such as providing assistance to casualties caused by the traffic accident, and the police officer promptly inform the occurrence of the traffic accident of the occurrence of the traffic accident and take appropriate measures, such as providing assistance to the victim and restoring traffic order. As long as the result of the traffic accident is in a situation where measures are necessary for the relief of the victim and restoration of traffic order, the duty shall be interpreted as the duty imposed on the driver of the vehicle who has caused the traffic accident regardless of intentional or negligent illegality in the occurrence of the traffic accident, and the duty shall not be imposed even if there is no reason attributable to the occurrence of the accident in question.

subsection (3) of this section.

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Do1731 delivered on May 24, 2002). Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the original court and the first instance court in accordance with the above legal principles, the lower court’s finding the Defendant guilty of the violation of the Road Traffic Act of the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning is justifiable.

There is no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.