The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

The defendant in the factory room is a person who is engaged in driving a vehicle B in the city.

On July 1, 2016, the Defendant driven the said car at around 20:20, and led to the left turn to the parking lot for the south illegal site at the center of Pacific-ri, Pacific-ri, 158, and the front of the south illegal site.

At the time, there was a night and non-working, and in such a case, there was a duty of care to prevent accidents by safely checking the front left left by a person engaged in driving service.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected to do so and went along as it was by negligence, and served the right edge of the victim C (the age of 63) who walked along the right edge of the defendant's proceeding as the chief wheels.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered from the injury of the diversatory pulverization of the diversatory diversities that require approximately eight weeks of treatment to the victim due to the above occupational negligence.

Maz.

1. A case which cannot be prosecuted against the express will of the victim (the main sentence of Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents);

2. On November 17, 2016, after the prosecution of this case, a written agreement was submitted that the victim does not want punishment against the defendant.

3. Judgment dismissing public prosecution (Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act);