The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

However, for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant asserts to the effect that there was no negligence on the part of the Defendant, as the vehicle was inevitably dissatisfed due to the ice ice on the road, and caused an accident by breaking the center line.

B. On the other hand, the Defendant asserts that, with respect to the punishment of the lower court (4 months of imprisonment without prison labor), the Defendant is too unafford and unfair, while the prosecutor asserts that it is too unafford and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Fact-finding assertion 1) "When a traffic accident occurred in violation of Article 13 (2) of the Road Traffic Act" in the former part of Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents refers not to a case where the point where the traffic accident occurred in violation of Article 13 (2) of the Road Traffic Act, but to a case where the traffic accident occurred in violation of the central line without any inevitable reason, and "the unavoidable reason" in this context means the case where the driver did not take other appropriate measures to avoid the obstacles occurring on the ongoing lane, or the driver tried to run along his lane with the driver's own lane because of external conditions that cannot be controlled, and thus, the Central Line itself, such as the driver did flick with the central line without any inevitable reason, was affected (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Do536, Sept. 25, 190; Supreme Court Decision 90Do1361, Oct. 13, 191).

Even if a driver does not engage in any abnormal driving operation, such as overwork, sudden change, or sudden operation, unless it is a slope, it cannot be readily concluded that the driver is due to external conditions that make it difficult for him/her to control (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Do1232, May 23, 1997). Therefore, the above legal doctrine and the first instance court are difficult to determine that the driver is due to the external conditions that he/she cannot control (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Do1232, May 23, 1997).