The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine) is dismissed, since the Defendant’s failure to cause a traffic accident to proceed as it is due to a malfunction in the vehicle operated by the Defendant, and the central line is inevitably invaded due to the risk of traffic accident

2. In light of the judgment, the emergency escape under Article 22(1) of the Criminal Act refers to an act having considerable reason to avoid the present danger to his or another person's legal interests. The "act having considerable reason" here, in order to constitute "act having considerable reason," the act of escape must be the only means to protect the legal interests in danger, and the second way to give the most minor damage to the victim. Third, the profit preserved by the act of escape should be superior to the profit being infringed. Fourth, the act of escape must be an appropriate means in light of social ethics or the overall spirit of legal order (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do9396, Apr. 13, 2006, etc.). In this case, health care in this case, comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the risk of traffic accidents occurred while the vehicle was in operation, such as the defendant's assertion.

Even if it was the only means to avoid risk to operate the central line over the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's act cannot be seen as an emergency evacuation under Article 22 (1) of the Criminal Act.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition, since the defendant's appeal is without merit.