The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The summary of the facts charged is a person engaging in driving of CCA110 two-wheeled motor vehicles.

On December 17, 2017, the Defendant driven the above vehicle at around 17:50 on December 17, 2017, and proceeded to the roadway from the front of the E shop in Pyeongtaek-si D.

They are divided into a sidewalk and a roadway, and they can pass across the sidewalk, but in such cases, the driver of the horse has the duty of care to temporarily stop immediately before crossing the sidewalk, so as not to obstruct the passage of pedestrians after examining the left side and the right side.

Nevertheless, the defendant did not neglect his care and did not discover the victim FF who passed the sidewalk from the right side of the vehicle in the direction of the defendant's vehicle to the left side without examining the surrounding part, and did not discover the victim FF who passed the sidewalk from the right side of the vehicle in the direction of the defendant's vehicle. The above part of the victim's left side was shocked by the victim's left side.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim, such as salt, tensions, etc. in need of approximately two weeks of treatment due to the above occupational negligence.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the defendant could only recognize the fact that the defendant was shocked from the right side of the victim, and there is no evidence to prove that the defendant was driving in violation of the method of crossing the sidewalk.

Thus, the facts charged in the instant case fall under Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and it cannot be prosecuted in the event that a harming vehicle purchases an insurance or mutual aid to cover the full amount of compensation for damage pursuant to Article 4(1) of the same Act.

According to the record, it is recognized that the Maritime Vehicle was insured by the comprehensive insurance of the K non-life insurance company at the time of the accident, so this case is null and void in violation of the provisions of law.