The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

The Defendant is a person engaging in driving a small-scale vehicle B.

On October 3, 2015, the Defendant driven the above vehicle on October 3, 2015, and driven the front road of Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C at a speed of about 20km in speed depending on two lanes between four lanes in speed.

In such cases, the driver of a motor vehicle has a duty of care to ensure that the driver of a motor vehicle has a duty of care to prevent accidents by safely driving the entire traffic situation.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected to do so and neglected to do so and proceeds ahead of the same lane by negligence.

The part of the E Launa car backer of the victim D(27 years old) driving in the atmosphere of the signal was concealed into the front driver of the defendant's vehicle, and the damaged vehicle due to the shock was pushed down in the future, and the G SP car of the victim F(35 years old) driving was pushed down.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered, by negligence in the above business, the injury to the victim D, such as catum salt and tensions requiring a stable price for about two weeks, and the victim H (23 years old), catum salt and tensions requiring a stable price for about two weeks, and catum salt and tensions requiring approximately three weeks’ medical treatment to the victim F, and catum salt and tensions requiring approximately two weeks’ medical treatment to the victim I (36 years old).

The facts charged on the market are crimes falling under Article 3(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 under Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents. According to the records, the victims may recognize the facts that the victims expressed their intent not to punish the Defendant (F, D (27 years of age), H, July 21, 2016, respectively, and I (36 years of age) October 12, 2016). Thus, the prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparag. 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.