The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant has been granted a six-month sentence to the Defendant for a one-year grace period; (b) the Defendant was unable to drive the Defendant on the ground that it is difficult for the Defendant to drive the Defendant without a vehicle with disabilities of class III with delay disability; and (c) the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence on the ground of a fine (the Defendant’s defense counsel asserted on the grounds of appeal by misapprehending the legal principles to the effect that the Defendant’s act does not constitute a Central Line at the first public trial date; (c) the Defendant’s defense counsel asserted on the grounds of appeal by misapprehending the legal principles to the effect that the Defendant’s act does

As seen below, this Court shall decide ex officio the defendant's act constitutes a central crime. 2. Determination ex officio as to whether the defendant's act constitutes a central crime

A. Article 3(2) proviso of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (amended by the former part of Article 3(2) proviso of the Road Traffic Act), "in the event of a traffic accident, in violation of Article 13(3) of the Road Traffic Act, the term "in the event of a traffic accident," means the case where the point where the traffic accident occurred takes place, not all the cases beyond the median line, but it causes a traffic accident by breaking the median line without any justifiable reason." The term "in this case," "in the event of an unavoidable reason" means the case where there was no other appropriate measure to avoid the obstacles indicated on the ongoing lane, or where the driver tried to drive the median line with his own lane due to external circumstances, but there is an objective reason that makes it impossible to criticize the driver (see Supreme Court Decisions 87Do2171, Mar. 22, 198; 200Do334, Oct. 11, 199).