The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The Defendant is a person engaging in driving service of 1 ton freight vehicles B.

On June 23, 2016, the Defendant: (a) 12:51 minutes before, the Defendant committed a central line in order to keep two-lanes of D in front of D in Daegu Western-gu C from the right edge to the right edge of 20 km in speed from the right edge to the right edge of steering rock distance.

Since the place is where the center line of yellow 2 lines is installed, a person engaged in driving of a motor vehicle is obliged to take care of not more than the center line by putting ahead the center and accurately manipulating the steering system, brakes, etc. of the motor vehicle.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and conflict with the victim E (the 67-year-old) who was driving a two-lane of the central line, following the left side of the F Bana-si driven by the victim E (the 67-year-old).

As a result, the defendant suffered from the victim's negligence in the course of his duties the salt ties and tensions that require approximately two weeks of treatment.

2. The evidence submitted by the judgment prosecutor alone is insufficient to readily conclude that the Defendant had a victim suffered an injury by collision with the vehicle driven by the victim due to negligence in the center line, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, according to evidence, such as a de facto survey report and a video screen of damaged vehicles, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant: (a) placed the center line into one lane; (b) neglected the duty of care to change the vehicle line by looking at the front line; and (c) neglected the duty of care to change the vehicle line from one lane to two lanes; and (d) operated the Defendant’s vehicle by changing the vehicle line from one lane to two lanes; and (b) shocked the back side of the victim’s vehicle on the left side of the two lanes.

Therefore, the defendant's occupational negligence does not constitute gross negligence under the proviso of Article 2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and the crime of this case can be prosecuted against the victim's express intent in accordance with Article 3 (1) of the Act.