The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. A prosecutor 1) In light of the legal principles, even if the non-products were not generated due to a traffic accident caused by the Defendant, there was a concern that additional traffic risks and obstacles may be caused due to the stude of a taxi who observed the accident. Therefore, the Defendant was required to take measures after the accident.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The lower court’s improper sentencing is too unfortunate and unreasonable.

2. Determination of the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the legal principles

A. The purport of Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act is to prevent and eliminate traffic hazards and obstacles on the road and ensure safe and smooth traffic flow. In this case, measures to be taken by a driver are to be taken according to specific circumstances, such as the content of the accident and the degree of damage, and measures to the extent normally required in light of sound cultivation (Supreme Court Decision 2009Do787 Decided May 14, 2009). (b) The following facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below. (i) The defendant driving his vehicle on the road without taking measures to confirm whether there is a person inside the damaged vehicle parked on the road and to ensure safe and smooth traffic flow, and it is not to recover the victim's damage. (ii) The defendant who escaped the above witness's vehicle was able to drive the vehicle on the road without taking measures to confirm whether there is a person inside the damaged vehicle and whether there is any damage, degree of damage, degree, etc., and etc., (iii) the defendant was 1 to 20 meters away from the above evidence.