The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The gist of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a person engaged in driving a vehicle under C.

On November 6, 2015, the Defendant, at the third plant outdoor work site, E, Inc., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., which was located in Daejeon Seo-gu, Daejeon, Daejeon, on November 13:40, 2015, engaged in the work of loading waste films to the victim F, while carrying 8.5 tons of 200 tons of wing F (47 tax)’s G treatment.

In such cases, despite the occupational duty of care to prevent accidents by checking whether there is a person in the vicinity of the driver's vehicle, the driver's duty of care was neglected to prevent accidents, and the driver's duty of care was shocked with the wheels of the victim who was in the vicinity of the passenger's vehicle.

Defendant 1 suffered injury to the victim in the above occupational field and the victim of the above occupational field for about six weeks of heavy stokes (closed) and the stoke of stokes (closed).

2. The motor vehicle that the judgment defendant drives is a construction machinery defined in Article 2 (1) 1 of the Construction Machinery Management Act and is defined in Article 2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents;

The Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents does not apply only to traffic accidents that occur on the roads provided for in the Road Traffic Act, but also to all cases that occur on the road due to the traffic of the vehicle (see Supreme Court Decision 96Do1848, Oct. 25, 1996, etc.). The same accident as the above facts charged constitutes traffic accidents under Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do7272, Jan. 11, 2007, etc.). Thus, the above facts charged are crimes falling under Article 3 subparag. 1 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and Article 268 of the Criminal Act, and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent pursuant to Article 3 subparag. 2 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents. According to the written agreement submitted by the defendant, the victim F is the victim.