The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds of appeal is that the accident in this case occurred directly due to the defendant's central line and the violation of the safety zone. Thus, the judgment of the court below dismissing the public prosecution in this case is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

2. The term “in case where a traffic accident occurred due to the act of driving a vehicle along the center line of the road in violation of the provisions of Article 13(2) of the Road Traffic Act” in the former part of Article 3(2) proviso of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, which is the applicable provisions of the indictment for judgment, means the case where a traffic accident directly causes the occurrence of a traffic accident, that is,, the act of a traffic accident by the center line in the course of driving the center line of the road. Thus, if the act of a traffic accident is not the direct cause of the occurrence of a traffic accident, the traffic accident is deemed to have occurred during the course

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Do1319 delivered on December 10, 191, etc.). According to the records, considering the following, the Defendant’s entry to the instant parking lot: (a) was over the center line to enter the safety zone and the entrance of the parking lot where the victim is located; (b) was obstructed by hearing the victim’s horses; and (c) after a locking, the Defendant was found to have shocked the victim’s legs while the vehicle entering the parking lot was tightly cut off to enter the parking lot from the normal entrance line to the safety zone; and (d) the instant accident was caused by the Defendant’s new driving operation after stopping the vehicle along the center line to the safety zone; and (e) it is unclear whether the victim was inside the safety zone at the time, it is difficult to view the Defendant’s aforementioned central crime and the act of entering the safety zone as a direct cause for the instant accident, and thus, the judgment below dismissed the instant prosecution.

3. Conclusion.