The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. While recognizing the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby dismissing the prosecution.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below is based on the following facts: "When a traffic accident is committed in violation of the provisions of Article 12 (3) of the Road Traffic Act" under the former part of Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1350, Dec. 10, 1991; hereinafter "the former part of Article 12 (3) of the Road Traffic Act") refers to a case where the traffic accident is caused by the act of driving a road by breaking the median line of the road, i.e., the act of invasion of the central line, which directly caused the occurrence of the traffic accident. Therefore, even if the act of invasion of the central line is not directly caused by the occurrence of the traffic accident, the traffic accident is not included in the former part of Article 3 (2) 2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Do1319, Dec. 10, 1991).

C. The victim is under the influence of alcohol level of 0.157% at the time of the instant accident in the court below.