beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant, who is the owner of the instant vehicle, took necessary measures after the accident, such as reporting the accident to the insurance company through C, and even though the instant vehicle was parked at the edge of the road and there was no need to take measures to prevent and eliminate traffic hazards and obstacles due to the frequent passage of the vehicle at the time, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. In light of the overall circumstances of the instant case of unfair sentencing, the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (a fine of KRW 1.5 million, etc.) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The purport of Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act regarding the assertion of mistake of facts is to ensure safe and smooth traffic by preventing and removing traffic risks and obstacles that occur on the road. In this case, measures to be taken by drivers 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 measures shall be taken to the extent ordinarily required in light of sound forms.
In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the vehicle of this case, after the occurrence of the accident of this case, was part of the road in front of the valleyg-gun, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, and was scattered on the road. The defendant notified Matrimonial E after the occurrence of the accident of this case, and requested C, the owner of the vehicle of this case, to report the accident to the insurance company, and left the site of this case after 30 minutes (the trial record 34-36 pages, investigation records 29 pages), it cannot be said that the defendant did not have to take measures under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act after the accident of this case.