The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The court below's decision on the grounds of appeal that the accident of this case occurred while the accident of this case exceeded the central line and returned to the road of this case.

On the other hand, the defendant's central crime was determined as the cause of the accident of this case.

However, the instant accident occurred due to the Defendant’s shocking of the Defendant’s vehicle, driving at a speed exceeding 60 km (60 km in the city) and shocking the Defendant’s vehicle in front at a speed exceeding 64 km (60 km in the city), and the instant accident did not occur due to the Defendant’s central collision.

In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. Determination

A. Article 3 (2) proviso 2 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (hereinafter “Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents”) of the proviso to Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents shall be deemed to fall under all central crimes except where a driver has been forced due to external circumstances that make it impossible to control, even though the central crime committed without taking other appropriate measures to avoid obstacles occurring on the lane. Meanwhile, as long as the act of traffic accidents occurred directly, the central crime is deemed to fall under the case where the place of the accident is the opposite to the central line or the damaged vehicle is the vehicle. (Supreme Court Decision 90Do536 Decided September 25, 190). In full view of the following facts and circumstances duly adopted by the court below, the court below’s judgment can be recognized by evidence, and the following facts and circumstances, which led to the passage of the central line during the process of bypassing the road of this case, should not be deemed to fall under the case where the accident occurred.