The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person who is engaged in driving of the Clearning Motor Vehicle.

On August 10, 2015, the Defendant changed the course to enter the Busan Science Industrial Complex as an access road located on the right side of the Busan Science Industrial Complex, while driving from the Jindo to the Busan Sea according to one-lanes of the two-lanes of the width of the access road to the Busan Science Industrial Complex, according to the Jindo, the Defendant changed the course to the access road to the Busan Science Industrial Complex, which is located on the right side.

In such cases, a person engaged in driving duty has a duty of care to safely change his/her course at a sufficient distance and not to interfere with the normal passage of other vehicles, if there is a vehicle on the lane to change the front and rear side.

Nevertheless, the Defendant was driving a Da SM5 car on the two-lanes at the time when he was negligent in changing the course to the right-hand access road through a two-lane from the first lane to the right-hand science industrial complex without looking at the rear side well.

E had the Defendant son shocked the right-hand absorption unit to avoid the Defendant’s above-learning passenger car, and moved back the facility to the left-hand side of the vehicle.

Ultimately, the Defendant caused an injury to the victim F (the 46-year-old) who is the passenger of the above damaged vehicle due to the above occupational negligence, by causing an injury to the recognition function due to the 3,4 chest tymmetric and the tymmetric tymosis, etc.

2. The above act is a crime falling under Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and Article 268 of the Criminal Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s explicit 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, it can be acknowledged that the victim agreed with the defendant on August 23, 2016, which was after the prosecution, and expressed his wish not to punish the defendant. Thus, Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act applies.