Since an intersection is anticipated to enter another vehicle, the defendant engaged in driving of the motor vehicle has a duty of care to prevent accidents by accurately manipulating the operation and steering gear through a thorough examination of the front side and the left side of the motor vehicle.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and found the victim F, who is driving on the left side from the right side of the proceeding direction due to negligence of neglecting the duty of care on the front side and the left side, and received the same bicycle from the Defendant’s vehicle.

As a result, the Defendant suffered from the injury to the pelpelup, accompanied by the left-hand pelvis, which requires approximately 10 weeks of medical treatment, due to the above 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

However, according to the records of this case, it is recognized that the victim agreed with the defendant on August 4, 2015, which was after the prosecution of this case, and expressed his wish not to punish the defendant. Thus, the prosecution of this case is dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.