The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the event of an accident by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, since the victim's vehicle was invaded by the central line at the time of the accident, it does not constitute an action after accident.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. Even if a person is guilty of an unreasonable sentencing, the lower court’s sentence (700,000 won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The duty to take relief measures and duty to report when a traffic accident occurs as provided by Article 50(1) and (2) of the Road Traffic Act, in determining the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, shall be promptly imposed on the driver, etc. when the driver, etc. is killed or injured or damaged by the traffic of the vehicle, and the police officer shall be informed of the occurrence of the traffic accident and take appropriate measures such as rescue of the victim and restoration of traffic order. As long as the result of the traffic accident is in a situation where measures are necessary for rescue of the victim and restoration of traffic order, such duty shall be interpreted as a duty imposed on the driver of the vehicle who has caused the traffic accident regardless of intention, negligence, liability or illegality in the occurrence of the traffic accident. Thus, the above duty shall not be imposed even if there is no reason attributable to the accident in question.

subsection (3) of this section.

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Do1731 Decided May 24, 2002, etc.). The court below acknowledged the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (after the accident) against the defendant, as acknowledged by evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, although the victim's vehicle at the time of the accident in this case appears to have been in excess of the center line, the defendant's vehicle was moving back on the road, and without relation to the degree of negligence in the accident.