The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The gist of the prosecutor's grounds for appeal constitutes a crime of non-compliance with the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents. Since the defendant's defense counsel submitted a written agreement with the victim's representative prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below, the court below erred by finding the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case despite the judgment dismissing the prosecution of this case.

2. Summary of the facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person engaging in driving of C2.5 tons of truck trucks.

On December 6, 2015, at around 13:11, the Defendant started from the front side of the Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D shop, along with a green signal from the front side of the police box to the front side of the signal to the front side of the two-lanes. At that time, the victim E (n, 81 years old) was leading the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle at the time, and thus, the Defendant was negligent in failing to perform his duty of care to prevent the accident by properly examining the left side of the front side of the vehicle, and thereby, caused the victim to shock the front side of the Defendant’s freight, and thereby, caused the victim to wear the head on the road.

The Defendant suffered from a serious injury that is difficult to move independently due to an external wound so that it was caused by the above occupational negligence by the victim.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by compiling the evidence as indicated in its judgment.

3. The facts charged of the instant case are crimes falling under Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and Article 268 of the Criminal Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the intent expressed by the victim under 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, I, a proxy of the victim, is a defense counsel of the defendant.