The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the court below's dismissal of a public prosecution against the defendant on the grounds that the defendant's central line intrusion cannot be recognized, even though the defendant did not directly intrude the central line as long as the defendant was engaged in an intern, which has no choice but to follow the central line intrusion as a matter of course, constitutes the central line intrusion under Article 3 (2) proviso 2 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below is to protect the trust of the opposite driver that the driver's duty to pass along the upper right side of the center line of the road under Article 13 (3) of the Road Traffic Act will not pass beyond the center line (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do2116, Jul. 7, 2000). Thus, in order to constitute the median line of the center line under Article 3 (2) proviso 2 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, the driver's act of intrusion at least is required, and the central course is the direct cause of the occurrence of traffic accident.

However, in this case, while the defendant is driving a two-lane, he changed the lane to a one-lane for the purpose of breaking the center line, and the damaged vehicle driving one-lane at the boundary line between the one-lane and the two-lanes is shocked, so there is no defendant's central crime of intrusion itself.

Therefore, the accident of this case is not a direct cause of traffic accident, but it is nothing more than a defendant's breach of duty of care to observe when changing lanes under Article 19 (3) of the Road Traffic Act.

B. We affirm the judgment of the court below by comparing the above judgment of the court below with records. It is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the prosecutor's assertion is without merit.