The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. On August 4, 2016, the Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a D-A-Wed-Wed-Wed-Wed-Wed-C-Wed-Wed-Wed-Wed-Wed-Wed-Wed-Wed-Wed-Wed-Wed-Wed-Wed Wed-Wed-Wed-Wed Wed-Wed-Wed

Since there is no traffic control at all places, there was a duty of care to check whether a person engaged in driving of a motor vehicle is crossing a motor vehicle by reducing the speed or temporarily stopping the motor vehicle.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and did not temporarily stop immediately before entering the intersection, and went through as it was, due to the negligence of the victim G (the age of 64) who was driving from the terminal side to the joint elementary school, received the front part of the H S600 L car operated by the Defendant, which was driven by the victim G (the age of 64).

Ultimately, the Defendant by occupational negligence caused injury to the victim, such as cerebral raid in detail, which does not have any open room for treatment for about three weeks, and at the same time damaged the above S600 LA car to be repaired in an amount equivalent to KRW 15,594,040, such as the exchange of front rupers.

2. Each of the facts charged of this case is a crime falling under Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 268 of the Criminal Act, and Article 151 of the Road Traffic Act, which cannot be prosecuted 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 According to the records of this case, it can be recognized that the victim has withdrawn his/her wish to punish the defendant after the institution of the prosecution of this case. Thus, the prosecution of this