The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding or legal principles: (a) The Defendant parked in a nearby parking lot seen in the place of accident after the instant accident occurred; (b) returned to the place of accident; and (c) removed obstacles that could hinder the flow of vehicles; and (d) placed in the site as well; and (b) the Defendant was unaware of the agency in charge of the division division of the damaged central unit at night; and (b) the Defendant was unaware of the agency in charge of the management of the damaged central separation unit at night, and later, was thought to have taken follow-up measures, such as recovery of damage, with the aid from

3. In light of the fact that the Defendant received an accident report from an insurance company around 8:55, etc., it was necessary to take measures to ensure smooth traffic by preventing and removing traffic hazards and obstacles at the time of leaving the site.

It is difficult to see it.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, on the contrary.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (the penalty amounting to five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The purport of Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act is to prevent and eliminate traffic dangers and obstacles on roads, and ensure safe and smooth traffic flow. In this case, measures to be taken by drivers are not to 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 is to be taken to the extent ordinarily required in light of sound form (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do787, May 14, 2009). In this case, in light of the health stand, and the evidence duly adopted and duly examined by the court below, the following circumstances can be comprehensively considered.