The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The Defendant is a person engaging in driving a car in CSpo-type.

On January 15, 2017, the Defendant driven the above car at around 19:20, while driving it, the Defendant was driving on the two-lanes of the E oil station located in Da in the followingsan City, one-lane from the Tden Tweden distance of movable property.

At night, in such a case, the driver of the vehicle has a duty of care to prevent accidents by accurately manipulating the steering direction and brakes of the vehicle and accurately manipulating the steering direction and brakes of the vehicle.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to drive his vehicle by negligence before the Defendant’s driving direction, caused the part concerning the back of the G rocketing passenger vehicle driven by the Victim F (29 S) who was parked in order to keep the signal in front of the Defendant’s driving direction to be pushed down in the future, and caused the said rocketing passenger vehicle to be driven by the IS520 passenger vehicle driven by the said SM520 passenger vehicle in order to keep the above SM520 passenger vehicle while driving for the signal waiting at the front of the Defendant’s driving direction.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim by occupational negligence during the two-day period of medical treatment. In addition, the Defendant suffered injury to the salt and tension in need of medical treatment.

2. The instant crime cannot be prosecuted against the express intent of the victim under the main sentence of Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents. According to the agreement and the statement of non-permanent sources of punishment submitted by the Defendant after the instant indictment, it is apparent that the victim expressed his/her intent not to punish the Defendant. Thus, the instant prosecution is dismissed pursuant to Article 327(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.