On October 17:30 on October 2013, 2013, the Defendant continued to run a way way to the right side of the early pharmacy from the clock terminal to the right side of the clock terminal.

However, since there is a side road, it was an occupational duty of care to prevent accidents by accurately operating the brake and steering gear and accurately.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and did not discover the victim G (seven years of age) who was standing from the left side of the Mamast Road to the right side of the Mamast, and shocked the victim in front of the above vehicle.

As a result, the Defendant suffered serious injury to the victim due to such occupational negligence as above, such as degradation of recognition function due to the cutting of the frame of the two floors.

2. Determination

(a) Crimes of non-compliance with an intention: Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents;

(b) A declaration of intention that the father who is a person with parental authority of the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant;

(c) Public prosecution dismissal: Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act;