A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Of the facts charged in this case, violation of the Road Traffic Act.

2. Determination ex officio (as to the violation of the Road Traffic Act among the facts charged in this case), the absence of the expression of intention not to punish a person subject to punishment is a so-called passive litigation condition and subject to ex officio investigation. Thus, even if the party did not assert it as a reason for appeal, the court shall ex officio investigate and determine it.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2000Do3172 delivered on April 24, 2001, etc.). A.

The summary of this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a CSP car. On August 30, 2012, at around 18:30, the Defendant was driving the said SSP car and thereby driving the public parking lot in front of the public parking lot located in the Gunnam-e Eup at the speed of 2 meters at an indefinite speed. On the other hand, a person engaged in driving service has a duty of care to prevent accidents in advance by accurately operating the steering and steering the steering and operating the steering system, while he has a duty of care to prevent accidents in advance, he neglected to do so, and thereby caused the victim E E-Si car parked in the front section of the said SPP car to be damaged by 68,800 won.

B. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant, the driver who committed the crime under Article 151 of the Road Traffic Act (the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act due to the destruction of and damage to property by negligence) cannot be prosecuted against the victim's express intent. According to the records, the victim D of the violation of the Road Traffic Act due to the destruction of and damage to property by negligence among the facts charged in this case is recognized as having expressed his/her intention not to be punished against the defendant on October 10, 2013, which is the date of the prosecution in this case.