The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

except that, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the acquittal portion of the judgment of the court below on the ground of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles [the violation of the Road Traffic Act (the violation of the Act)], even though the defendant was parked in a sufficient victim's vehicle by causing a traffic accident, since there was a danger and obstacle to traffic, such as the occurrence of scatterings, etc. caused by the above accident, the defendant's act of leaving his vehicle without any measure shall be deemed to constitute a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (the measure after

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, community service, 40 hours in social service, 40 hours in a compliance driving lecture, and 20,000 won in fine) is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. In light of the legislative intent of newly inserting the phrase of exclusion from the punishment that "if it is obvious that only a motor vehicle parked or stopped has been damaged, a person who fails to provide personal information to the victim pursuant to Article 54 (1) 2 shall be excluded" with respect to the facts charged in violation of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter referred to as "unclaimed measures"), the lower court should not apply Article 148 of the Road Traffic Act even if it was necessary to take measures under Article 54 (1) 1 of the Road Traffic Act, even if the defendant damaged the motor vehicle parked or stopped and did not notify the personal information, it should be deemed that Article 148 of the Road Traffic Act is not applicable to the facts charged in violation of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Road Traffic Act"). For the reasons stated above, the lower court found him/her guilty of a violation of the Road Traffic Act under Article 156 subparagraph 10 of the Road Traffic Act and Article 54 (1) 2 of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter referred to as "unclaimed measures after an accident").

(b).