beta
Text
The prosecution of this case is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The Defendant is a person engaging in driving Cump trucks.
On May 18, 2017, the Defendant driven the above truck on around 14:50, while driving the truck at around 14:50, and driving the two-lane road at the south of the Do Council which is located in the 344-4 of the Do government located in the Do government located in the Do government located in the Do government located in the Do government of the south of the south of the South, the Defendant was going to bypass to the Do government village of the Do government.
Since the above road has a place where the traffic of other vehicles is frequent, there was a duty of care to prevent accidents in advance by safelypassing the situation of the two lanes and the other vehicles in the rear side with the driver of the vehicle.
Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and did not look at the traffic of the motor vehicle coming from the two lanes and the rear, but did not immediately make the right-hand of the Dowon Village through the two lanes from the above one lane, and caused the ewing part of the victim D (43 ) driving, which was proceeding along the two lanes of the above truck with the right-hand side of the above truck, and shocked the upper part above the left-hand side of the freight vehicle.
As a result, the Defendant suffered serious injury to the victim due to the above occupational negligence, such as the structural frame of the wall, the duct of the duct, and the real name of the ductal of the ductal of the ductal.
2. The crime described in the facts charged of this case is a crime falling under Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and Article 268 of the Criminal Act, and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent pursuant to the main sentence of Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents. According to the records of this case, the victim may recognize the fact that he/she expressed his/her wish not to punish the defendant after the institution of this case. Thus, the prosecution of this case is dismissed pursuant to Article 327(6)