Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. In fact, the vehicle driven by the Defendant, which was driven by the misunderstanding of the fact, was snicked down by a snick side of the road surface and caused the instant accident beyond the central line. Thus, the Defendant’s act cannot be deemed to constitute a “central sunken line” under Article 3(2)2 proviso of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

Nevertheless, the lower judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The phrase "when a driver intrudes the central line of a road on which a lane is installed in violation of Article 13 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents" in the former part of Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents as to the misunderstanding of Facts means that the point where a traffic accident occurred does not refer to all cases beyond the central line, but causes a traffic accident by subsidenceing the central line without any justifiable reason. The phrase "a unavoidable reason" in this context means that there was no other appropriate measure to avoid an obstacle on the road, or the driver tried to operate the central line to keep the lane on his/her own, but he/she cannot be subject to criticism due to external circumstances that the driver could not control, and thus, it cannot be readily concluded that the driver cannot be viewed as a motor vehicle's external traffic situation due to the driver's failure to control the road on the road surface (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do2349, May 23, 1997).