beta
Text
The prosecution of this case is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The gist of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a person engaging in driving CM trucks.
On February 9, 2015, the Defendant driven the above vehicle around 10:22, and led to the driving of three lanes in front of the Han Bank located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul along the two-lanes from the intersection of the Yeongdeungpo-gu market to the airspace of the Yeongdeungpo-gu market.
Since there is a crosswalk where a signal, etc. is installed, there was a duty of care to safely drive the motor vehicle by checking whether a person engaged in driving the motor vehicle is a person who gets on the front side and the right side, and accurately manipulating the steering direction and the brake system.
Nevertheless, the defendant neglected this and proceeded to the left side on the right side of the vehicle of the defendant on the crosswalk by negligence, which continued to proceed at the same speed without examining the front side properly.
The victim D(79) was driven by the victim D(79) and operated the E-to-bea in order to detect late and avoid this to the left-hand side. However, the part of the victim's driver's vehicle was not affected by the defendant, resulting in the victim's left-hand part of the E-to-hand side of the victim's vehicle.
Ultimately, the Defendant suffered injury due to occupational negligence, such as the injury to the lower end of the body at which the treatment period cannot be known to the victim, as well as the unknown island network and pedestrian disability caused by such occupational negligence.
2. Determination is the case 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 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, it can be acknowledged that the victim agreed with the defendant on January 28, 2016, which was after the prosecution of this case, and expressed his/her wish not to punish the defendant (the victim was after the accident).