In such cases, a person engaged in the driving of the driver's vehicle has a duty of care to check whether there is a pedestrian or not within the work radius, and to take a step behind the driver's vehicle, if he or she turns behind the vehicle, he or she has a duty of care to prevent accidents by properly manipulating the steering direction and brake system.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected the above duty of care and did not properly ascertain whether there is a pedestrian in the surrounding area, and had the victim go beyond the victim by taking the body part of the victim C (ma, 64 years old) with the back part of the body part of the victim C (ma, 64 years old) in order to assist the loading and unloading of the ship at the same time due to the negligence, which led to the Defendant’s neglect of such duty of care and did not properly confirm whether there is a pedestrian in the surrounding area, and had the victim go beyond the victim.

As a result, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim by negligence in the above business, such as the 10-day medical treatment of the victim, and the pressure traculic and the diversculic typology of the main body.

2. We examine the judgment. This is a crime falling under Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and Article 268 of the Criminal Act, and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents. According to the records of this case, the victim submitted a written agreement and a written application with the purport that he/she shall not be punished against the defendant on January 19, 2015, which is after the prosecution of this case. Thus, the prosecution of this case is dismissed pursuant to Article 327(6) of the