The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, at the time of the instant accident, left the Defendant’s vehicle at the scene, was the victim with the vehicle heat, and the said vehicle had the vehicle registration certificate and contact address of the Defendant, and thus, did not escape.

B. The lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable because of its excessive sentencing.

2. Determination

(a) Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act (1) provides that the driver and other crew members of a vehicle shall immediately stop the vehicle and take necessary measures, such as providing assistance to casualties, when they cause death or injury to people or damage to goods due to the traffic of the vehicle, such as driving of the vehicle;

The purpose of Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act is to prevent and eliminate traffic risks and obstacles on roads to ensure safe and smooth traffic flow, not to restore damage to victims. In such cases, measures to be taken by drivers shall be appropriately taken according to specific circumstances, such as the details of accidents and the degree of damage, and measures to the extent that such measures are ordinarily required in light of sound forms.

I would like to say.

(2) In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court at the lower court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do787, May 14, 2009). (2), the place where the instant accident occurred is frequently where pedestrians and vehicles are traveling along the alleyway at the entrance of a conventional market. Since the Defendant did not disclose the name and contact information of the victim after the instant accident occurred and did not leave the said accident site, it can be recognized that the Defendant left the vehicle driven by the Defendant as it is without disclosing the name and contact information to the road and left the said accident site. Thus, the Defendant did not comply with the “necessary measures at the

B. In full view of all the sentencing conditions in the instant case records and arguments, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable and unfair.

3. Conclusion.