The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Of the facts charged in the instant case.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. The purpose of Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act is to prevent and eliminate traffic dangers and obstacles on roads to ensure safe and smooth flow of traffic, not to recover victims’ physical damage. In such cases, measures to be taken on the road by a driver should be appropriately taken according to the circumstances in the accident scene, such as the content of the accident, the mode and degree of damage, etc., and the degree of such measures is measures to the extent ordinarily required in light of sound form (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do2001, Jun. 28, 2002; 2014Do214, Mar. 13, 2014). According to the records of the instant case, the instant accident not only caused damage to the vehicle that the Defendant driven on the road but also caused damage to the vehicle.

(c)

Examining these circumstances in light of the above legal principles, it was necessary for the Defendant to take measures to ensure safe and smooth traffic by removing traffic risks and obstacles caused by the instant accident.

It is difficult to see that the defendant left the accident site without taking necessary measures under Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act.

On the other hand, the defendant cannot be punished as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (not after the accident).

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of the violation of the Road Traffic Act (the post-accident) is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Conclusion.