On December 26, 2016, the Defendant driven the above cargo vehicle around 14:35 on December 26, 2016, and led to the intersection of the three-distance distance in 38-13, the north west-do, the west-do, the west-do, the west-do, the west-do, the west-do.

A person engaged in driving of a motor vehicle shall check the condition of maintenance of the motor vehicle in advance before its operation, and if the condition of maintenance is inferior, he/she shall not drive the motor vehicle, and in particular, he/she has a duty of care to prevent accidents by checking the condition of the motor vehicle operation when he/she becomes aware that there is any malfunction in the brake

Nevertheless, even though the Defendant neglected to drive the above cargo while hearing warning, etc., he did not take measures such as brail only brail and closely checking the brake system, and without taking such measures as bnailing and closely checking the brake system, and as it was caused by the negligence of operation of the above cargo to operate the above cargo at the bal-distance intersection, he was on the front side of the above cargo vehicle.

Defendant 1 caused injury to the victim D (54) of the same person by negligence in the course of performing the above duties by causing damage to the fluoral or to the fluoral injury due to the fluoral of the fluoral flas and the brusing of the fluor requiring approximately 14 weeks medical treatment.

Judgment

1. Applicable legal provisions: Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 268 of the Criminal Act;

2. Crimes of non-violation of an intention: The main sentence of Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents;

3. The victim expressed his intention not to punish him after the prosecution of this case.

4. Judgment dismissing a public prosecution: Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.