The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the victim of the instant case shows the symptoms of dementia in the middle degree, and thus it is difficult for the victim to have a normal accident, so even if he/she expresses his/her intention not to punish the Defendant, it cannot be said that he/she has accurately recognized

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a dismissal of prosecution on the ground that the victim explicitly expressed his/her intention that he/she does not want the punishment against the defendant. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the crime of non-compliance with intent

2. Determination

A. The Defendant in the facts charged is a person engaging in driving the B Kaz. in the instant case.

On January 3, 2019, the Defendant driven the above van on January 16:02, 2019, and led to the 119 Safety Center, which is set up from the side of the Agricultural Triang Tririri-gu, Gyeonggi-si, the front side of the C, to the 119 Safety Center.

In such cases, the driver of the motor vehicle has a duty of care to prevent accidents in the smoke by safely driving the motor vehicle in a way that the driver of the motor vehicle well sees the front side and the left side.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected to do so and failed to discover the victim D (85 years old) who was crossing a road from the right side of the defendant's proceeding direction to the left side by negligence and neglected to perform his/her duty of care, and did not discover the victim D (85 years old) and got the victim to go beyond the ground.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered a serious injury, such as an external shock that requires approximately 28 weeks of treatment, due to such occupational negligence.

B. The lower court determined that the Defendant’s intent not to punish the Defendant in relation to the instant facts charged was based on his/her genuine intent, although the victim was in a state of not having a certain mind, on August 5, 2019, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s expressed his/her intent not to punish the Defendant.