On March 16, 2016, the Defendant, while driving the said car on duty and driving it along a two-lane between the two-lanes on the side of the parliamentary government and the two-lanes on March 16, 2016, the Defendant changed the two-lanes to the one-lane.

In such cases, there was a duty of care to prevent any interference with the driving of a motor vehicle when the vehicle is driven on the lane that is intended to accurately operate the steering direction and brake system and to change the right and the right of the vehicle in good manner.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and changed the lane into a one-lane, and conflicted the right side of the victim E(47 tax) driving with the driving direction of the victim E(47) driving with the front side of the Defendant’s car.

Ultimately, the Defendant damaged the above damaged vehicle by occupational negligence so that the repair cost of approximately KRW 3,420,69 is required.

2. Determination of the instant violation of the Road Traffic Act is an offense that constitutes Article 151 of the Road Traffic Act and thus 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.

However, according to the records of this case, it is recognized that E expressed his/her intention not to be punished on December 12, 2016.

Therefore, the public prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.