The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

B. The public prosecutor’s victim expressed his/her intention not to prosecute prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the first instance court, and thus the judgment dismissing the public prosecution should be rendered.

2. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, who is engaged in driving service of B automobiles, was driving the D front road located in Young-gun C around September 17:50, 2014 to the territorial direction on the right side of the right side on the right side of the high side. In such a case, the Defendant had a duty of care to prevent accidents in advance by safely driving a vehicle, such as making a person engaged in driving service with the right side and accurately operating the steering direction and brake devices, while driving the vehicle in advance.

Nevertheless, the defendant's negligence in the front of the driver's car at the front of the driver's vehicle at the front of the victim E (50) who was driving in the front of the driver's vehicle at the front of the driver's vehicle.

As a result, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim due to the above occupational negligence during the loss of eyesight due to the Maternal damage.

B. According to the facts charged in the instant case, the victim’s injury falls under Article 4(1)2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and thus, even if the Defendant’s vehicle purchased a comprehensive insurance policy, an indictment may be instituted against the Defendant. However, the Defendant does not constitute a case where the Defendant committed an act under the proviso of Article 3(2) of the same Act. Thus, the instant facts charged 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 under Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

According to the records, the victim is a victim on April 18, 2017, before the judgment of the court below was rendered after the prosecution of this case.