On May 21, 2013, at around 06:45, the Defendant driven the above vehicle and entered the side road of 123-5, the speed from which it is possible for the Government to turn to the possible station at the parking lot of the Defendant’s dwelling.

In such cases, the driver of a motor vehicle shall not drive the motor vehicle at a speed or in such a manner as to inflict any danger and injury on others according to the road traffic conditions, the structure and performance of the motor vehicle, and there was a duty of care to prevent accidents in advance by safely reporting the traffic situation.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected to do so and neglected to stop the front-time, and the victim C (the 65 years old and south) who proceeded on the left-hand side from the right-hand side of the defendant's vehicle driving direction to the left-hand side of the victim C (the 65 years old and south).

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered injury, such as a chest 10-day therapy and a 9-day catus catus at the left-hand side, to the victim due to the above occupational negligence.

2. We examine the judgment. The facts charged of this case are crimes 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 the main sentence of Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents. According to the records, the criminal agreement on August 6, 2013, which stated the victim's expression of wish not to punish the defendant, which was submitted to this court after the prosecution of this case was instituted, can be acknowledged. Thus, the prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327(6)