The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The accident place of mistake of facts is where the width is narrow and strong so that there is an inevitable reason to lead the center line even if the vehicle is normally operated by the Defendant’s bitr.

The court below erred by misapprehending the fact that the accident of this case constitutes a "median crime" under the former part of Article 3 (2) 2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (hereinafter referred to as a fine of four million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The phrase "when a traffic accident gets involved in the center line of the road where a vehicle line is installed" in the former part of Article 3 (2) 2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents concerning the misunderstanding of Facts means that the occurrence point of the traffic accident does not refer to all cases beyond the center line, but causes the traffic accident by breaking the center line without any inevitable reason. The phrase "inevitable reasons" in this context did not take other appropriate measures to avoid the obstacles shown 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 Decisions 90Do536, Sept. 25, 1990; 95Do1232, May 23, 1997). According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the total length of the vehicle is 16.3 meters of the vehicle’s length, and the vehicle operation restriction length of the road in which the instant accident occurred is 16.7 meters of the vehicle’s length, and the fact that the section is a bend road to a considerable extent is recognized.

However, for the foregoing reasons, even if it is inevitable to operate the Defendant’s vehicle in excess of the center line at some points, the Defendant is the Defendant.