The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

On September 22, 2012, the defendant in the factory office was driving an agricultural Track on September 15:15, 2012, and the same 200 meters away from the intersection which is obtained in the driving principle of the Si-Gu, Jeju, to the intersection which is obtained from the intersection.

At the time, the two lanes are two lanes. In such cases, in order to prevent an accident, a person engaged in driving a motor vehicle has a duty of care to operate a direction direction, etc. in case of safely driving along the lane and changing the lane, in order to prevent an accident, the person engaged in driving a motor vehicle has a duty of care to change the lane by giving an advance notice of a change in course and properly examining the traffic situation of the front and rear left-hand.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected this and moved in the two lanes from the two lanes to the first one, and the part front of the damaged vehicle of Calburged in accordance with the same direction, which is the front part of the damaged vehicle of Calburged in the same direction.

After all, the Defendant damaged the victim D (n, 42 years of age)’s injury of dystrophal salt, etc. requiring approximately three weeks of medical treatment, and damaged property equivalent to KRW 3,847,580 of the cost of repairing vehicles owned by the victim by such occupational negligence.

However, 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 151 of the Road Traffic 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

However, the victim submitted a written agreement to the effect that he does not want to punish the defendant after the prosecution of this case, and the prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.