The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The Defendant driven a bicycle with B 110CC motors.

On November 19, 2015, around 14:20, the Defendant changed the four-lanes of the six-lane in the direction of the disturbance in the middle-time youth training center in the direction of the middle-time youth training center, into five-lanes.

In such cases, a person engaged in driving of a motor vehicle has a duty of care to inform the driver of the motor vehicle of the change of direction by hand or direction, etc., and to check and proceed with the safety of course by properly examining the traffic conditions in front, rear, and left.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected this and did not find the victim D(50) bicycle driving on the same right side as it is running on the same direction. The defendant's driver's above motor engine device bicycle riding on the right side of the bicycle and received the victim's bicycle riding on the right side of the bicycle and caused the shock to go beyond the floor of the victim.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim, such as a ductating the upper right, which requires approximately eight weeks of treatment due to such 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of the instant case, it can be acknowledged that the injured party, after instituting the instant prosecution, has withdrawn his/her wish to punish the Defendant. Thus, the instant prosecution is dismissed pursuant to Article 327(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.