The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

except that the ruling shall be made for one year from the date of the final judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are suffering from Teinson’s disease, taking drugs, such as the U.S. spectrum, kins, and Melela (hereinafter “the instant drugs”) according to doctor’s prescription, and taking them into account the side effects of the said drugs. The Defendant, at the time of the instant case, was involved in an accident beyond the central line because, due to drug addiction, he did not have any choice but go beyond the central line. Thus, this cannot be said to constitute the central line under the former part of Article 3(2)2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (three months of imprisonment without prison labor) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The phrase “when a traffic accident is committed 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)2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents concerning the misunderstanding of misunderstanding of Facts and misunderstanding of legal principles refers not to cases where the point where the traffic accident occurred is committed beyond the median line, but to cases where the traffic accident occurred by be committed with the median line without any inevitable reason. The phrase “a unavoidable reason” in this context did not take other appropriate measures to avoid obstacles on the lane.

It refers to the case where there are objective circumstances that make it impossible to criticize a driver in the Central Line itself, such as the driver's or the driver's failure to maintain his/her own lane but he/she inevitably intrudes the Central Line due to external conditions that are not controlled by the driver.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Do1232, May 23, 1997). With respect to this case, the health team, the original court, and the lower court.