On September 14:50, 2020, the Defendant changed the course of the vehicle parked on the two-lanes, which was parked on the two-lanes, into the two-lanes, from the E middle school room to the F elementary school room.

In such cases, there was a duty of care to prevent accidents in advance by changing the lanes in the direction of the driver of the motor vehicle to give prior notice of change of course by operating direction direction, etc., and to prevent the accidents in advance.

Nevertheless, if the Defendant neglected this and negligently changed the course as it was, the Defendant got the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle back to the right side of the H New Airport that was driven by the victim G ( South, 54 years old) who is proceeding one-lane in the same direction of the Roman, and received the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle’s left side.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered by negligence on the part of the above victim, such as the pipe and human salt, tension, etc. of the part in need of approximately two weeks of medical treatment, and the part in need of identifying detailed conditions.

2. Determination of the above facts charged is an offense falling under Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and Article 268 of the Criminal Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent pursuant to Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

However, after the prosecution of this case was instituted, the injured party expressed his intention not to be punished for the defendant.

The public prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.