The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the misunderstanding of the facts or the misunderstanding of the legal principles took measures, such as harming the view of the non-products above the road immediately after the accident, the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act is not established.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or affecting the conclusion of judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. The purport of Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act is to prevent and eliminate traffic risks and obstacles on the road, thereby ensuring safe and smooth flow of traffic. In this case, measures to be taken by drivers on the road shall be appropriately taken according to the situation at the accident site, such as the content of the accident, the degree of damage, and the degree of damage, and the degree of measures normally required in light of sound form (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4383, Sept. 30, 2005, etc.). The following circumstances acknowledged by the court below, which are duly adopted and investigated by evidence, such as photographs at the accident site, are as follows: (i) the Defendant’s destruction of three fences by shocking the fences for the prevention of traffic congestion installed at the center on the road; (ii) the degree of damage to the pent; and (iii) the Defendant’s return to the road after leaving the road where the accident occurred; and (iv) the Defendant’s return to the road after leaving the road.

Based on the judgment of the police, the defendant also stated in the police investigation that the police "after the accident, the defendant confirmed the damage by stopping and stopping the vehicle immediately after the accident, and the vehicle left behind and left the vehicle."