The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 6 million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, even if the Defendant followed the limited speed of 60 km/h at the time of the accident as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the lower judgment (hereinafter “instant accident”), the instant accident could not be avoided. Therefore, there is no proximate causal relation between the error of the Defendant’s violation of the limited speed and the instant accident.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the ground that there was a proximate causal relationship between the Defendant’s violation of speed limit and the occurrence of the instant accident, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment without prison labor, two years of suspended execution, and forty hours of participation in the compliance driving lecture) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misapprehension of legal principles

A. Generally, in light of the relevant legal principles, a motor vehicle driver who operates a road with a median line along his/her own median line is generally aware of the operation of a marina line. Thus, barring any special circumstance that could anticipate the abnormal operation of the other motor vehicle, the other motor vehicle driver is not obliged to pay a duty of care to anticipate the other motor vehicle upon entering the median line. In such a case, even if the above motor vehicle driver has driven a motor vehicle beyond the speed limit, it cannot be deemed to have been negligent on the sole ground of such circumstance. However, if the other motor vehicle driver did not drive the motor vehicle, he/she cannot be deemed to have been negligent, unless there was a circumstance that the other motor vehicle driver could avoid a collision with the other motor vehicle immediately stopping or speeding.

I would like to say.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 90Meu2441 delivered on June 26, 1990; 98Do1854 delivered on September 22, 1998; 91Da4469 delivered on April 10, 1992, etc.)

Judgment

1. The charged facts of this case are found to constitute a violation of the Defendant’s speed limit.