The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The main sentence of Article 54 (2) of the Road Traffic Act provides that the driver and other crew members of the relevant vehicle shall report without delay to the police officer when the police officer is present at the scene, the place where the accident occurred in the nearest national police station (including district police units, police boxes and branch offices) where the police officer is present at the scene, the number of casualties and the degree of injury, the goods damaged and the degree of damage, the degree of other measures taken, etc., such as the degree of the damage.

The purpose of the Road Traffic Act is to eliminate traffic congestion on the road and prevent the expansion of damage, thereby maintaining the traffic order and ensuring the safety of the traffic by informing a police officer or police office of the traffic accident without delay when the traffic accident occurred and allowing it to take appropriate measures such as relief of victims and recovery of traffic order.

In light of the legislative intent of the duty to report under the Road Traffic Act, the right to refuse to make statements guaranteed under the Constitution, and the principle of equality, the duty to report the driver, etc. who has caused the traffic accident shall be interpreted only when it is deemed necessary to take systematic measures of police officers beyond the personal measures of the victim in order to rescue the victim and recover the traffic order according to the size

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Do1013, Jun. 25, 1991). This also applies to the case where the proviso of Article 54(2) of the Road Traffic Act provides that “the same shall not apply in a case where only a vehicle in operation is obviously damaged and measures necessary to prevent danger and ensure smooth flow on the road are taken.”

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the above legal principles and the record, the court below erred in the facts charged in this case on the grounds as stated in its reasoning.