The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 3(2) proviso of Article 3(2) proviso of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents refers to a case where a traffic accident happens due to an act of driving a central line in violation of Article 13(3) of the Road Traffic Act, i.e., the act of intrusion on the central line, which directly caused the occurrence of a traffic accident (see Supreme Court Decisions 91Do1319, Dec. 10, 191; 94Do1200, Jun. 28, 1994; 94Do1200, Jun. 28, 1994). If the location of a traffic accident exceeds the central line, it does not refer to the case where a traffic accident occurred by breaking the central line without any inevitable reason, but the "inevitable reason" in this context means a case where a traffic accident occurred without any other appropriate measure to avoid an obstacle on the road lane, or where a driver of the central line does not have any choice but with no objective reason to criticize it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da2).

Recognizing the facts charged in this case, the judgment of conviction is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on traffic accidents in the central line and thereby affecting the conclusion

The precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are different from the instant case, and it is not appropriate to invoke the instant case.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided by the assent of all participating Justices.