On July 7, 2015, the Defendant, a Daejeon Pung-gu University, around 00:40, proceeded to the front university of 291 Kaststm Engineering East University from the four-lane distance from Sungsung-gu, U.S., at approximately 70km each hour, along the two-lane distance from U.S. Sinsung-gu.

At the time, a person engaged in driving of a motor vehicle at night and at the right time due to narrow view, has a duty of care to live well along the steering gear, brakes and other devices of the motor vehicle, to accurately operate the steering gear, brakes and other devices of the motor vehicle, and to not drive the motor vehicle at such speed or in such a manner as may inflict any danger and injury on others according to the traffic situation of the road

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so and neglected the duty to see the direction of his vehicle in the front line between the two-lanes of his vehicle in the front line of the mast and the two-lanes of his vehicle. However, the Defendant was able to look at the direction of his vehicle in the front line of his taxi operation, and the victim D (26 Do), which was cut to the right to the front line of his taxi operation, was able to go to the front line of his taxi operation.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered injury by negligence in the course of performing the emergency opening and the removal of blood species with an external wound, which does not have any open address in two parts of the victim, due to the above occupational negligence, while suffering injury from an incurable wound that does not return to normal consciousness after the implementation of the emergency opening and the removal of blood species.

2. The facts charged in the instant case constitute 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, which cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under the main sentence of Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

According to the records, it is recognized that the victim expressed his intention not to punish the defendant after the prosecution of this case. Thus, the prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so ordered as per Disposition.