On July 7, 2015, the Defendant driven the said car at the Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-

It is a parking lot, no signal light or road surface is separately marked, and since it is a place where pedestrians are expected to pass, there was a duty of care to check the traffic situation of the driver of the motor vehicle well and check whether there is a person driving the motor vehicle, and to safely drive the motor vehicle.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so and found the victim C (at the age of 50) who was walking on the front side of the front side, and received the victim’s body part as the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle.

Ultimately, the Defendant caused an in-depth disease by causing an in-depth paralysis, walking disorder, and recognition disorder by causing an in-depth injury to the victim, who suffered from an in-depth depression, which does not have an open address in the two cases where treatment is required for at least seven months of the above occupational negligence.

2. In light of the judgment, the instant crime falls under Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and Article 268 of the Criminal Act, and thus, cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under the main sentence of Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents. According to the records of the instant case, it can be acknowledged that the injured party, after the instant indictment, has withdrawn his/her wish to punish the Defendant. Thus, the instant prosecution is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparag. 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.