On August 14, 2014, around 17:38, the Defendant continued to turn to the left the right at the front of the Jindo-Eup's upper half-distance 25, Jindo-Eup's upper half-distance 17:5.

Since there was a vehicle that was driving in the intersection at the time, the driver of the motor vehicle had a duty of care to prevent the accident by accurately manipulating the front side and the left side and the right side, and by accurately manipulating the steering and brake system.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and proceeded without finding out the F.O. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. of the victim E driving, who was proceeding in the intersection at the time of the crossing due to negligence, and caused the victim to go beyond the floor in the process of taking the operation measures to avoid the collision with the said small automobiles.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered from serious injury to the victim, such as cerebral cerebrovascular in the treatment days, due to such occupational negligence.

2. The facts charged in the instant 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, and 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, it is recognized that the victim expressed his/her intent not to punish the Defendant on April 23, 2015, which was after the institution of the instant prosecution, and thus, the instant prosecution is dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparag.