The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding, misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant caused the instant accident, which led to brooms, where a vehicle driven by the victim F is trying to commit an illegal internship.

Therefore, the Defendant, without negligence, committed an accident by breaking the central line without negligence, but the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the meaning of “influence of the central line” under the former part of Article 3(2)2 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the meaning of “the negligence” under Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 268 of the Criminal Act, and Article 151 of the Road Traffic Act

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment without prison labor, two years of suspension of execution, observation of protection, and community service order 80 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Fact-misunderstanding and misapprehension of the legal doctrine 1) In the event that the Defendant intentionally intrudes on the central line, the Defendant does not constitute “in the event that he intrudes on the central line” under the former part of Article 3(2)2 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

one of the arguments, the central line is infringed upon;

“Absently means a case in which a traffic accident occurred by breaking the central line without any justifiable reason. It includes not only intentional but also negligent cases (see Supreme Court Decision 85Do784 delivered on June 25, 1985). Thus, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

2) In addition, the Defendant asserts that there was no negligence in the occurrence of the instant accident, but examining the record, the lower court, as indicated in its reasoning, did not interfere with the passage of vehicles running in the opposite direction because the victim F driver's vehicle does not lick the vehicle adjacent to the victim F driver's vehicle, and (2) the Defendant was driving in the two-lanes of the opposite f driver's vehicle, and (3) if the Defendant was working in the course of performing his duty of care while driving in the same manner, the Defendant was driving in the same manner as the two-lanes to the opposite one.