The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The purpose of Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act is to prevent and eliminate traffic dangers and obstacles occurring on roads to ensure safe and smooth flow of traffic, not to recover the physical damage suffered by victims, but to take measures to be taken by drivers in such cases according to specific circumstances, such as the content of accidents and the degree of damage, and measures to the extent that such measures are ordinarily required in light of sound cultivation;

(2) On March 14, 2012, the main points of the instant charges of violation of the Road Traffic Act (accident-after accident) are as follows: (a) the Defendant driven a car in the instant case (hereinafter referred to as “defluence vehicle”) around 14:40 on May 11, 2012 in order to prevent any damage to the Defendant’s vehicle by immediately stopping the part of the instant vehicle in front of the “defluence 48 square meters” (hereinafter referred to as “defluence vehicle”) at the front of the front of the “defluence 48” restaurant, which is located in front of the front of the “defluence cafeteria,” at the center of the National Bank from the center of the National Bank from March 29, 2007, and driving the road at a speed beyond the center of the road at a speed of 14,013; and (b) the Defendant did not immediately stop the part of the instant vehicle to prevent any damage to the Defendant’s front of the instant vehicle.

3. However, according to the record, ① the Defendant stops at the edge of one-lane road, while driving ahead of the damaged vehicle in order to turn on the way to the damaged vehicle, and driving ahead of the damaged vehicle, approximately 2-3 meters later, and shocking the front part of the damaged vehicle stopped at the rear part of the damaged vehicle, and ② the Defendant together with F immediately after the accident.