The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The Defendant is a person engaging in driving a car BFD.

On November 15, 2019, the Defendant driven the above vehicle at around 19:17, and proceeded along the four-lanes in the direction of sexual intercourse from the river of Seongdong-gu Seoul, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, along with 119 (Songdong 1A), from the river of Seongdong-gu, and from the direction of sexual intercourse, the Defendant driven the above vehicle at around 19:17.

In such cases, a person engaged in driving service of a motor vehicle has a duty of care to accurately operate the steering system, brakes, and other devices of the motor vehicle and to prevent accidents in advance by safely reporting the traffic conditions of the road.

Nevertheless, the defendant is negligent in driving while driving the vehicle before the same direction.

The back portion of the DMFW car driven by the victim C(E, 42 years old) who suspended the vehicle was shocked in front of the defendant vehicle.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered injury, such as salt dynasium, which requires approximately two weeks of medical treatment by occupational negligence as above, and at the same time, damaged the damaged vehicle by making the repair cost amounting to KRW 12,975,000 per repair dog.

2. According to Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 268 of the Criminal Act, and Article 151 of the Road Traffic Act, the aforementioned facts charged cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent pursuant to Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of

According to the records, since the victim submitted a written agreement stating that he/she does not want the punishment for the defendant after the prosecution was instituted, the prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.