The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The summary of the facts charged is a person who operates B i30 vehicles.

On August 31, 2012, at around 22:30, the Defendant immediately promoted the roads in front of the local third village village village 136-7 located in Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, at a speed of 20 km per hour from the end of the pure village apartment room to the end of the upper village village apartment room.

The driver of the vehicle has a duty of care to safely drive the front line and safely drive the center line at night and there is a yellow central line, so the driver of the vehicle has a duty of care to prevent accidents.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and received the part of the bridge part of the victim C (V) in the middle line due to the negligence of breaking the center line, and received the front part of the driver's seat in the Defendant's vehicle.

As a result, the Defendant inflicted injury on the victim by negligence in the above business, such as cutting down the lower-ranking executives of the right guard frame, which requires treatment for about 12 weeks.

2. Determination

A. A. The prosecutor indicted the instant accident by applying Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents to the effect that the instant accident constitutes “an accident on the central line” under the proviso of Article 3(2)2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

B. The term "in the event of a traffic accident" in the former part of Article 3(2)2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents means that the occurrence point of the traffic accident does not refer to all cases beyond the median line, but the occurrence point of the traffic accident causes the traffic accident by overcoming the median line without any inevitable reason, and the inevitable reason does not exist to take other appropriate measures to avoid the obstacles on the moving line.

It refers to cases where there are objective circumstances that make it impossible to criticize a driver in the Central Line itself, such as that he/she intends to operate his/her own or to protect his/her own tea but he/she has been forced to intrude the Central Line due to external conditions that are not controlled by the driver.

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Do1783 delivered on October 11, 1991, etc.)

(c)in this case;