The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The Defendant is a person engaging in driving of B-B cargo vehicles.

On October 30, 2015, the Defendant driven the above cargo vehicle on October 30, 2017:25, and was at the same time, the private distance at the entrance of the village of 1st century was straight from the village to the direction of loyalty.

At that time, traffic control is not performed, and the passage of a vehicle is frequent at the time. In such a case, there was a duty of care to safely proceed, such as yielding the course, if there are other vehicles already entered the intersection by sufficiently making a person engaged in driving of a motor vehicle enter the intersection before entering the intersection or temporarily stopping the right and the right of the road after having sufficiently examined the right and the right of the road.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so and driven the right by driving it as it is without just examining the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the

Defendant 1 suffered injury to the victim due to the above occupational negligence, such as an injury to the victim, during the period of 20 weeks or more at the time of maliba, in which the details of the treatment date are not clear, and in which no open address is available.

2. The facts charged in the instant case are crimes falling under Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, which cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent pursuant to the main sentence of Article 3(2) of the same Act. According to the statement in the criminal agreement compiled in the records of the instant case, the victim may acknowledge the fact that the victim expressed his/her intention not to have the Defendant punished after the instant indictment was instituted.

Therefore, the public prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.