On August 14, 2014, the Defendant driven the above car at around 07:20, and moved the car to a diversous speed from the Myeon office to the diversing surface of the car at the Myeon office, depending on three lanes in front C in front of C at the southyang-si.

At that time, it is a three-lane, and the left turn turn signal was in operation at the side of the office of the head of the Gu/Si/Gun.

In such cases, a person engaged in driving of a motor vehicle shall accurately operate the steering system, brakes, and other devices of the motor vehicle, and has a duty of care to safely drive the motor vehicle by taking into account the situation of the anti-traffic.

Nevertheless, while the Defendant neglected to do so and opened a roadside due to driving on a roadside, he found the E- B-E vehicle driven by the victim D (32 years of age, n) who is in progress to turn to the left at the right side according to the left signal from the right side of the vehicle and reconvened the entrance signboards owned by the victim F (43 years of age, n, n) who was in front of the Defendant vehicle and continued to conflict and proceed with the back end part of the damaged vehicle with the rear part of the damaged vehicle.

As a result, the Defendant suffered injury to the said victim D, which requires approximately two weeks of medical treatment due to such occupational negligence, and at the same time damaged the said victim’s repair expenses of KRW 5,190,000, such as the backer of the said damaged vehicle, and the repair expenses of KRW 5,50,000.

2. The instant facts charged are crimes falling under Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and Article 151 of the Road Traffic Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 2(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

However, according to each agreement submitted by the defendant, the victim F and D expressed their wish not to punish the defendant on October 1, 2014, which was after the prosecution of this case was instituted.

Therefore, it is true.