The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The summary of the facts charged is a person driving a B SP car owned by the Defendant.

On October 6, 2017, the Defendant, at around 13:29, driven the above vehicle at a speed that cannot be seen as one-lane of the three-lane road (the right-hand left-hand turn-hand turn-hand turn-hand turn-on) from the 39-1,000 square meters of the water site to the surface of the office located in the north water source.

The Defendant had a duty of care to maintain and proceed safe distance with the preceding vehicle.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and shacked the victim C's driving car operated for the electric-round signal waiting by using the same ring line due to the negligence of the Defendant’s negligence, and hacked the part of the driver’s vehicle into the front part of the driver’s vehicle.

In the end, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim C, such as salt pans and tensions in the trokes, tensions and tensions in the trokes, salt tensions and tensions in the trokes, and strokes and tensions in the trokes, which require two-time treatment of the trokes, and the son E suffered injury to the son E such as salt pans and tensions, eros and tensions in the trokes, eros and tensions of the trokes, and other trokes and tensions of the trokes, which require two-day treatment of the trokes, and the son F of which requires treatment of the trokes and tensions of the trokes, and the tensions and tensions of the trokes and tensions of the trokes, and the tensions and tensions of the trokes and tensions.

2. Grounds for dismissing a public prosecution: The judgment dismissing a public prosecution by a vehicle that has caused a traffic accident (the case where the vehicle involved has purchased a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance policy):