The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal: The damage to the central separation cost of the instant case caused by mistake is due to the fact that the material was not consistent with the relevant provisions, and if it was installed according to the provisions related to the central division cost, the Defendant was driving a stroke while driving it.

Even if the facts charged are not destroyed to the same extent as the facts charged.

Therefore, the court below found the defendant guilty on the ground that the defendant is not liable for the facts charged of this case and thus, it erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination of the duty to take relief measures and duty to report under Article 50(1) and (2) of the Road Traffic Act in the event of a traffic accident is imposed in such a way that the driver, etc. promptly takes necessary measures, such as aiding and abetting the victims of the traffic accident, restoring traffic order, etc. when the driver, etc. is killed or injured or damaged by the traffic of the vehicle, and the police officer is informed of the occurrence of the traffic accident and takes appropriate measures to rescue the victims and restore traffic order. Thus, if the result of the traffic accident is in need of measures to rescue the victims and restore traffic order, the duty shall be interpreted as the duty imposed on the driver of the vehicle in question, regardless of intention, negligence, liability, or illegality in the occurrence of the traffic accident. Thus, the above duty is imposed even in the absence of any reason to report in the occurrence of the accident (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do1731, May 24, 2002). The defendant's assertion is not only reasonable but also does not affect the establishment of the traffic accident in this case.