All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of imprisonment with labor (one year of imprisonment) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. Regarding the acquittal part of the reasoning of the lower judgment on the grounds of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the instant traffic accident was caused by the Defendant’s direct cause of the operation negligence, which is the median of the center line while driving the vehicle, but the lower court’s failure to recognize the negligence of the median line as to the cause of the instant traffic accident under Article 3(1) and the former part of Article 3(2)2 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents is erroneous in matters of law by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The lower

2. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, around July 20, 2019, operated the EFrocketing car on the five-lane road in front of V in the Namdong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, and the place is where the center line of the yellow-ray is installed, and thus, a person engaging in driving a motor vehicle is obliged to thoroughly operate the front line while thoroughly operating the center line in spite of the duty of care to ensure the right side of the center line, due to the occupational negligence of operating the center line, and caused the victim W, who was driven by the victim W, who was the passenger, and the other driver of the vehicle, by receiving the vehicle driven by the victim W, who was the passenger and the other driver of the vehicle, respectively.

B. The lower court determined that the Defendant’s vehicle operation of the instant vehicle caused cerebral dystrophism and the collision with the vehicle driving on the opposite lane with the vehicle driving on the opposite lane cannot be assessed as the Defendant’s occupational negligence in the instant traffic accident, and thus, rejected the Prosecutor’s assertion that the instant accident was the central vessel erosion accident under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and acquitted the Defendant on the part of the Prosecutor.

In the traffic accident of this case, the defendant was diagnosed with an incurable cerebrovascular during the four years of age and continued medical treatment.