The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

According to the records, on January 29, 2014, the head of the Seoul Yangyang Police Station filed a request for a summary judgment against the defendant with the Seoul Southern District Court on the ground of the violation of Article 50 (1) of the Road Traffic Act. However, on the same day, the above court dismissed the request for such summary judgment by decision pursuant to Article 5 (1) of the Procedure Act because he/she recognized that the above case is inappropriate to be tried under the summary judgment procedure, and the head of the Seoul Yangyang Police Station transferred the case to the Seoul Southern Police Station, which is the controlling authority. On February 17, 2014, the head of the Seoul Gyeyang Police Station sent the records of this case to the head of the Seoul Central Public Prosecutor's Office on the ground that the request for a formal judgment was sent by mistake as to this case, and on February 20, 2014, the prosecutor in charge of the instant case sent the records of this case to this court as it is, can be recognized.

In light of the purport that the Criminal Procedure Act has adopted a written and strict form of indictment with respect to the institution of a public prosecution, insofar as there is no submission of a written indictment by a prosecutor which is deemed an essential element of the institution of a public prosecution, the institution of a public prosecution cannot be deemed to have been established only by the fact that the record was sent

However, in the case of this case, it is reasonable to apply Article 327 subparagraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act to the judgment dismissing public prosecution in the sense that it is reasonable that the court should apply Article 327 subparagraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act to the effect that the formal lawsuit has not been instituted due to the receipt by the prosecutor, the receipt by the court, and the issuance of case number