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 ground that the defendant cannot be recognized as a defendant's central crime under Article 3 (2) proviso 2 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, even if the defendant did not directly intrude the central line, since the defendant committed an illegal internship, which has no choice but to follow the central crime, as a matter of course, and thus, did not directly intrude the central line.

2. Determination of the driver’s duty to pass along the right side of the center line of the road under Article 13(3) of the Road Traffic Act is a provision for the protection of the driver’s trust of the opposite vehicle driver who will not enter beyond the center line (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do2116, Jul. 7, 200). Thus, in order to fall under 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 the center line must be the direct cause of the occurrence of the traffic accident.

However, in this case, while the defendant is driving a two-lane, the motor vehicle line was changed to a one-lane for the purpose of breaking the center line, and the damaged motor 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 line intrusion itself.

Therefore, the accident of this case is not the direct cause of traffic accident, but the defendant breached his duty of care when changing the lane provided by Article 19(3) of the Road Traffic Act, and the prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.