The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Purpose of legislation of Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act is not recovery of physical damage, but to eliminate the danger and obstacle to traffic, and the degree of necessary measures means the degree which is ordinarily required in light of sound form.

However, since the defendant was shocking a liquid sports vehicle owned by the victim G parked on the alleyway, there was no possibility of traffic danger or impediment. Since there was no way to confirm the owner of the above vehicle, there was no way to confirm the owner of the above vehicle, the defendant was not guilty of the facts charged, and the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, probation, and community service order 200 hours and 40 hours of attendance order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The purport of Article 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act is to prevent and eliminate traffic risks and obstacles that may arise on the road and ensure safe and smooth traffic flow, not to recover the damage of the victim. In this case, the defendant's assertion is reasonable in light of the fact that the measures to be taken by the driver should be appropriately taken according to the specific circumstances, such as the content of the accident and the degree of damage, and the degree of such measures normally required in light of sound form. However, in full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant's argument is reasonable.