The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was entering a C commercial underground parking lot because it was difficult to immediately stop the vehicle immediately after the accident and did not escape, but did not have the intention of escape.

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

2. Determination

A. The purport 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. The measures to be taken by the driver should be taken according to the specific circumstances, such as the content of the accident, the degree of damage, and the degree of such measures normally required in light of a sound form. Thus, if a driver who caused the traffic accident leaves the site immediately after the accident without notifying the victim of his/her personal information or contact details despite his/her restraint, it is difficult to see the necessary measures as stipulated in the above Act in light of the fact that it may cause other traffic risks and obstacles to the other traffic due to the occurrence of the occurrence of the accident. This is likewise true in the case of this case where the driver who caused the traffic accident turns out his/her vehicle immediately after the accident without notifying the victim of his/her personal information or contact details (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do4275, Apr. 27, 2007). 207.

The following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the trial court.