Around 18:40 on December 13, 2015, the Defendant driven the above vehicle and driven the front of the D-Road in C at the time of macroocing, along the three-lanes from the port side to the rooftop.

At the same time, the FK7 car driven by the victim E (the 30-year-old) was stopped in the signal atmosphere, so the person engaged in driving of the vehicle was obliged to reduce the speed and maintain the safety distance and prevent the accident in advance.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so and proceeded with it as it was by negligence, and received the part concerning the rear part of the said K7 car as the front part of the said vehicle.

Ultimately, the Defendant, by negligence in the above business, sustained injury to the injured party G (V, 29 years old) who was on the said E and the said K7 car due to approximately two weeks of treatment, such as salt and tensions in each of the following fields: at the same time, the Defendant damaged the said K7 car to be in excess of KRW 1,242,382 of the repair cost, such as exchange of pan-fluences.

2. Determination

A. In accordance with the relevant legal principles and Article 248 of the Criminal Procedure Act, a public prosecution is effective against persons other than the defendant designated by the public prosecutor. Thus, the prosecution is effective only against the persons designated by the public prosecutor as the defendant. Therefore, because the suspect cited another person's name in the indictment, the defendant was indicated as the defendant in the indictment.

Even if this is merely an error in the indication of the party, and the prosecutor brings a public prosecution against the mother, so it cannot be said that the mother will be the defendant and the victim will have the effect of the public prosecution.

Therefore, if the prosecutor revises the defendant's indication of the indictment and makes it correct, the prosecution against the defendant was filed from the beginning, and the court did not have a prosecution against the defendant.