All of the prosecutions of this case are dismissed.

1. The gist of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a person driving a Brane passenger car.

On July 15, 2014, the Defendant driving the above vehicle around 13:55, and driving a four-lane road in front of the gas station in Songpa-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu, Seoul, toward the right side of the locking station in the vicinity of the tin village and driving a speed of about 20 km per hour according to one lane.

The course has changed to a four-lane.

In such cases, a person engaged in driving of a motor vehicle is likely to impede normal traffic of other motor vehicles running in the direction of the change, and he/she has a duty of care to operate the direction such as direction, etc. in advance to give advance notice of change of course and to safely change the lane and prevent accidents in advance.

Nevertheless, when the Defendant neglected this and changed the course of the vehicle by negligence, the Defendant received the part on the left side of the FWW125EX2, driven by the victim E (hereinafter referred to as 45 years old) who was driving from the four-lanes to the three-lanes in the same direction of the horse, as the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered injury to the above victim due to the above occupational negligence during about three weeks of medical treatment, and at the same time damaged the above victim’s vehicle amounting to KRW 1,66,400.

2. Each of the facts charged in the instant case are those falling under Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and Article 151 of the Road Traffic Act, and both are not prosecuted against the express will of the victim pursuant to the main sentence of Article 3(2) of the Act on

However, according to the trial records of this case, it can be acknowledged that the victim expressed his/her intention not to be punished against the defendant on May 12, 2015, which was after the prosecution of this case. Thus, all of the prosecution of this case is dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.