The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As at the time of the accident of mistake of facts, the injured vehicle was stopped at the time of the accident of this case, and there was no injury to the victims, the defendant falls under the category of ‘person who did not provide personal information to the victim where it is obvious that only a motor vehicle parked or stopped was damaged,' and Article 148 of the Road Traffic Act does not apply, and even if it is not so, it is difficult to view that there was a need to take measures to prevent and eliminate traffic hazards and obstacles caused by the accident to ensure smooth traffic, and thus, it does not constitute a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (after

B. Even if the conviction of unfair sentencing is recognized, the lower court’s punishment (one million won of fine) is too heavy.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

가. 피해차량이 피고인 차량이 지나갈 수 있게 하기 위하여 도로의 우측 편에 일시적으로 멈췄다고 하더라도 도로교통법상 주차, 정차, 운전, 일시정지 등에 관한 규정들을 유기적으로 해석하여 보면, 운전자가 운행 중 상대방 차량이 쉽게 교행할 수 있도록 하기 위하여 일시적으로 멈춘 것은 차를 그 본래의 사용방법에 따라 사용하는 것으로서 일시정지에 해당할 뿐 도로교통법 제148조에서 규정한 정차에 해당하지 않는다고 해석하여야 한다.

This is clear that a driver who has caused a traffic accident in the main part of Article 148 of the Road Traffic Act damages only a motor vehicle parked or stopped, and the case where personal information is not provided is excluded from the subject of punishment under the Road Traffic Act and the circumstances of the accident in this case examined below, the accident in this case cannot be deemed to constitute “the case where it is evident that only the motor vehicle parked or stopped has been damaged” under Article 148 of the Road Traffic Act.

B. The purpose of Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act is to create risks and obstacles to traffic on roads.