The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for eight months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the instant accident occurred due to a prior accident that could not be controlled by the Defendant due to the serious condition of the road at the time, and due to its reflection, which led to the occurrence of a prior accident involving the Defendant’s vehicle going beyond the central line, and there are unavoidable circumstances in which the central line itself is unable to criticize the Defendant. As such, the former part of Article 3(2) proviso of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (amended by Act No. 13(3) of the Road Traffic Act), the instant accident does not constitute a central line erosion under Article 13(3) of the Road Traffic Act.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (eight months’ imprisonment without prison labor) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. "Where a traffic accident gets involved in a traffic accident in violation of Article 13 (3) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents" under the former part of Article 3 (2) proviso 2 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents refers to a case where the location where the traffic accident occurred does not go beyond the median line, but has caused a traffic accident by breaking the median line without any justifiable reason. The "inevitable reason" here refers to the case where the central crime, in which the driver did not have any other appropriate measures to avoid an obstacle on the road or tried to operate his lane in order to avoid an accident on the road, but the driver did not have any choice but has broken along the median line due to external conditions that cannot be controlled (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do832, Jul. 28, 1998, etc.). In light of the above legal principles, the court below's ruling that the defendant had been lawfully recognized as a traffic accident investigation by taking into account the following circumstances: