All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.

1. Prosecutor of the gist of the grounds for appeal: misunderstanding of facts (not guilty part of the grounds for appeal - the judgment of the court below which did not recognize proximate causal relation between the traffic accident of this case caused by the defendant and the death of the victim is erroneous): The defendant: misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (not guilty part of the judgment of the court below which rejected the prosecution - the traffic accident of this case - the traffic accident of this case only occurred due to the mistake that occurred due to the fact that the defendant was found in advance of the vehicle of the defendant seeking the change of

2. Determination

A. Article 19 of the Road Traffic Act provides that "No driver of any motor vehicle shall change its course when it is likely to impede normal traffic of other motor vehicles running in the direction to which he/she intends to change his/her course when he/she intends to change his/her course."

Therefore, all vehicles are not obliged to change their course when it is intended to change their course and it is likely to impede the normal traffic of all following vehicles running in the direction of the change, or it is impossible to secure the necessary distance to avoid collision with the latter, and therefore, a driver who intends to change his course is obliged to change the course while securing a sufficient distance to maintain normal traffic.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, ① the Defendant, who operated the four-lane immediately preceding the instant traffic accident, was running in the future by repeating the slowly and temporarily stopping due to the bodies of the vehicle in front, and ② the three-lane left side of the Defendant’s driving vehicle at the time is different.