The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a person who drives C in the course of business.

On May 15, 2018, at around 22:45, the Defendant straighted two lanes from among the four-lane roads in front of Busan, Jin-gu, Busan, at the speed of the non-speed in the direction of the intersection through a written intersection.

In such cases, a driver of a motor vehicle shall accurately operate the steering system, brakes, and other devices of the motor vehicle, shall not drive the motor vehicle at a speed or in such a manner as to inflict any danger and injury on others, depending on the traffic conditions of the road and the structure and performance of the motor vehicle, and shall have the duty of care to prevent accidents in advance by driving the motor vehicle in a safe manner by keeping the traffic situation well.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected these obligations and proceeded as is while driving a stroke, and the victim E-F k3 vehicle in front of the direction was shocked by the front driver of the Defendant driving vehicle in front of the direction.

The Defendant inflicted injury on the victim E, who was on board F driver’s seat due to such occupational performance as above, such as catum catum, requiring a two-day medical treatment, and suffered injury, such as catum catum catum, which requires a two-day medical treatment, to the victim G on board the catum, and damaged the back catus of the F vehicle so that the repair cost would amount to KRW 437,178.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant only shocked a damaged vehicle in the signal waiting at the front door, and does not constitute a violation of the signal.

There is no evidence to prove otherwise that the defendant violated the signal.

B. The Defendant’s vehicle is covered by a comprehensive insurance, and there is no reason falling under any subparagraph of Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents in the instant accident.

(c)

Since the public prosecution procedure is invalid in violation of the provisions of law, the public prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act.