The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

The Defendant is a person engaged in driving the BM3 vehicle volume.

On July 13, 2016, the Defendant driven the above vehicle on July 16, 2016, and proceeded with the national highways No. 25 adjacent to the erroneous distance in both Dong-ri, dong-ri, Hayang-nam, Hayang-do.

At this point, there was a duty of care to prevent accidents due to the fact that there was a point where the vehicle line is combined, so the person engaged in the driver's duty of driving a motor vehicle has a duty of care to prevent accidents due to thoroughness of the accident before and after the time.

Nevertheless, the defendant did not discover the ozone part of the victim C(62) driving, which was brought into the road along the defendant's running on the right side of the defendant's running, and received the rear part of the victim's right side as the front part of the defendant's vehicle.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered serious injury, such as serious decline in recognition and mental functions, due to cerebrovassis requiring treatment for up to three months by occupational negligence.

Judgment

The facts charged in 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 victim’s express intent under the main sentence of Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

In this regard, the agreement that “the Defendant and the victim agreed smoothly pursuant to Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents” was submitted to the court on November 14, 2016 after the institution of the prosecution of this case, and it is evident that the victim expressed his/her wish not to punish the Defendant.

Therefore, the prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.