The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the traffic accident of this case is not caused by the negligence of the defendant, but by the ice ice sprinking road, which is caused by the accident due to the external conditions of force majeure, and thus, the defendant cannot be recognized as a occupational negligence on the centralized crime. Thus, the judgment of the court below which judged that the traffic accident of this case was caused by the negligence of the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension

2. According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the lower court, the lower court acknowledged the following facts: (a) around 14:00 on December 5, 2012, the Defendant changed the lane while driving an X-ray 291 petroleum truck (hereinafter “aggresing vehicle”) in front of the 291 Petroleum Business Office in the Gucheon-si, Acheon-si, Acheon-si; (b) caused the central line by snow-freshing; and (c) caused the injury to the victim due to the collision with the victim’s IM5 car running along the median line.

In addition to the above facts, it was difficult to distinguish the central line or the lane from the point of accident on the day of the accident, i.e., the snow loaded on the accident site on the day of the accident. However, in some sections of the central line, the central line could have been installed in a separation cost, and the passage of the vehicle was melted or dried up to a certain extent, and the road floor was seen on the road along which the vehicles pass. The Defendant caused the snow to move the ice road while driving the ice road without installing the ice chain, etc., which led to the operation of the steering system on the one-lane to move the ice road to the place where the ice road can be seen.