The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Of the facts charged in this case, violation of the Road Traffic Act.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the court below expressed that D, the victim of the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act due to occupational negligence (the violation of the Road Traffic Act), which was the victim of the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act due to property damage, did not want the punishment of the defendant, the court below should have dismissed this part of the prosecution under Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and affected

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Of the facts charged in this case, the violation of the Road Traffic Act due to the occupational injury and damage of property is a crime falling under Article 151 of the Road Traffic Act, which 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 victim D expressed his/her intention not to be punished against the defendant on September 23, 2016, which is after the prosecution of this case, and thus, he/she should have dismissed this part of the prosecution pursuant to Article 327 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, the court below found the defendant guilty. In so determining, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the victim's expression of intent not to punish the

Therefore, the defendant's argument pointing this out is with merit.

3. Accordingly, the Defendant’s appeal on the violation of the Road Traffic Act due to the occupational injury and damage of property among the judgment below is with merit. Thus, this part of the judgment of the court below is reversed under Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing. However, since the above part of the facts charged and the remaining facts charged are imposed on the grounds that they have a substantive concurrent relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act,