The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the causal relationship between the Defendant’s central crime of aggression and the occurrence of the instant accident is recognized in full view of the following: (a) the Defendant did not have any inevitable circumstances under which the Defendant should intrude the central line; (b) the Defendant himself recognizes the intent to commit the instant accident; (c) the victim’s central crime of aggression was an inevitable option to avoid the occurrence of an accident due to the prior negligence; (d) the Defendant, despite the victim’s evasion act, was invaded by the central line; and (e) the damaged vehicle driving on the same lane may also be the victim of the Central Line; and in such cases, the same place where the accident occurred is not limited to the same lane.

Nevertheless, among the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that it did not constitute a traffic accident by the central crime under Article 3(2)2 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

2. Determination

A. (Related Law) In the case of a traffic accident under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, a traffic accident means the case in which a traffic accident occurred due to the operation of a vehicle by breaking the center line of the road, namely, the case in which a traffic accident directly causes the occurrence of a traffic accident. If a traffic accident does not directly cause the occurrence of a traffic accident, the traffic accident does not include the case in which a traffic accident occurred during the course of the operation of the center line.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 90Do2856 delivered on February 26, 1991; 94Do1200 delivered on June 28, 1994, etc.). B.

Considering the circumstances admitted by the lower court based on the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the fact that one of the grounds that provide for the exception of punishment for non-violation of the central line under Article 3(2) proviso 2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents is to protect the driver’s trust in the operation of the opposite line.