The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the accused has charged the accused with the damaged vehicle;

Even if the defendant shocked the damaged vehicle with the defendant's vehicle, the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act is not established since the fugitives, etc. did not keep away from the road.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion that the damaged vehicle was not shocked by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the fact that the defendant shocked the back part of the damaged vehicle by the defendant's vehicle from the investigative agency to the court below is found in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the victim has consistently stated from the investigative agency to the court below that he shocked the back part of the damaged vehicle; (b) the defendant also stopped without immediately departing from the vehicle after the accident occurred; and (c) the police dispatched upon the victim's report immediately after the accident occurred, according to the photograph taken by the police after the accident, the defendant was detained on the back part of the damaged vehicle with the same test color as that of the defendant's vehicle (as seen in Articles 76 to 78 of the Investigation Record).

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

B. (1) The purport of Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act is to prevent and eliminate traffic risks and obstacles on the road and ensure safe and smooth traffic flow, not to recover the damage of the victim. In this case, the measures to be taken by the driver should be adequately taken according to the specific circumstances, such as the content of the accident and the degree of damage, and the degree of such measures ordinarily required in light of sound form.

Therefore, the driver who has caused the traffic accident shall be the victim.