The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is the instant crime that cannot be prosecuted against the express will of the victim.

Inasmuch as the Defendant agreed with the victim and submitted a written agreement in which the injured party did not wish to punish the Defendant, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, even though the indictment of this case should be dismissed.

2. Around 09:45 on May 25, 2015, the Defendant: (a) was driving a DNA cargo vehicle parked in front of C in Jeju Island; (b) was negligent in the course of performing duties, due to the negligence of neglecting the front line; (c) did not discover the victim E (e.g., 87 years old); and (d) took part in the front part of the said cargo vehicle with the victim’s body and cut it over with the front part of the said cargo; and (d) took part of the said cargo with the front part of the said cargo, the Defendant suffered injury, such as fusculing a fusculine fus with approximately 14 weeks of treatment; and (e) fusculing the victim’s fusculine, fus and fladululing the frat with any open fuscule in the scarlet, both sides, and fratuling the fus.

3. The instant 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 punished 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According to the records of this case, the victim may recognize the fact that he/she had withdrawn his/her wish to punish the defendant by submitting a written agreement on November 18, 2015, which was prior to the pronouncement of the judgment below after the prosecution of this case. Thus, the court below convicted the defendant, although he/she should dismiss the public prosecution of this case under Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the crime of non-compliance.

4. Accordingly, the defendant's appeal is reasonable, and the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable.