The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles did not hear the horses from F, and the Defendant told F that F would stop immediately after the occurrence of the accident, and that F would have caused an accident, but F would intentionally cause an accident, and that F would not have any intention of escape, and that F would have suffered injury as stated in the facts charged.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding the facts and legal principles, the duty to take relief measures and duty to report when a traffic accident occurred as stipulated in Articles 54(1) and 54(2) of the Road Traffic Act is imposed in such a way that the driver, etc. promptly takes necessary measures, such as aiding the victims of the traffic accident, restoring traffic order, etc. when the driver, etc. killed or injured persons or damaged goods due to the traffic of the vehicle, and the police officer is informed of the occurrence of the traffic accident and takes appropriate measures for the relief of the victims and restoration of traffic order. Thus, if the result of the traffic accident is in need of measures for the relief of the victims and restoration of traffic order, it is reasonable to interpret the duty to impose the driver, who caused the traffic accident, regardless of whether the traffic accident occurred intentionally or negligently, and it is not obligated to take the above duty even in the absence of any reason attributable to the occurrence of the traffic accident (see Supreme Court Decisions 200Do1731, May 24, 2002; 15Do154, etc.).

The front wheel part of the F driver's bicycle and the front part of the Defendant's car are faced with, and the latter.