The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. On July 6, 2016, the Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving Csch Rexton car, and the Defendant was driving the above vehicle at around 03:30 on July 6, 2016, and was starting 40,000,000,000 from the front parking lot for Daejeon Pung Pung Pung-gu, with the aim of moving the vehicle at around 40,000.

In such cases, a person engaged in driving service has a duty of care to properly see all, rear, and left and right, and to prevent accidents by accurately manipulating the steering direction and brake system.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected to do so and failed to properly see the next stop, and the victim D ( South, 38 years old) who stops on the side of the aftermath (math, 38 years old) was driving by negligence after the aftermath.

E The top part of the top part of the taxi for business use was shocked by Defendant vehicle and the top part of the taxi.

After all, the defendant suffered injury, such as dump dump dump, which requires approximately two weeks of treatment due to the above occupational negligence.

2. We examine the judgment. The above facts charged are crimes falling under Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and Article 268 of the Criminal 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 the Settlement of Traffic Accidents. According to the records of this case, the victim can be acknowledged that he expressed his intention not to be punished against the defendant after the prosecution of this case. Thus, the prosecution of this case against the defendant is dismissed in accordance with Article 327(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.