The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the facts charged in this case cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s explicit intent, and it is a case where the victim’s written agreement was submitted prior to the pronouncement of the judgment below, and thus the public prosecution should be dismissed.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant in the facts charged is a person engaging in driving a T-M truck.

On September 14, 2017, the Defendant driven the above cargo vehicle at around 05:05 on September 14, 2017, and continued to proceed to the front line of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D with Saladon Sari-do.

At the time, there is a duty of care to prevent accidents in advance by thoroughly operating the driver of the motor vehicle and accurately manipulating the steering direction and brake system of the motor vehicle, since it is night and is adjacent to the private street intersection with no signal signal at that time.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected to make a left-hand turn without neglecting it, and the victim E (the age of 67) who hanged from the right-hand side of the defendant's proceeding direction to the left-hand side of the vehicle was shocked by the front left-hand side of the defendant's vehicle, and led the victim's right-hand side with the front-hand wheels.

Ultimately, due to the above occupational negligence, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim due to the injury of the victim, such as the part of the right string and the part of the string to the right string of the victim.

B. The facts charged in the instant case 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 the main sentence of Article 3(2) of the same Act.

According to the facts charged, the defendant does not constitute a case where a negligence falling under any of the proviso of Article 3 (2) of the same Act is committed.

According to the records, on December 20, 2017, prior to the pronouncement of the lower judgment, the injured person does not want the punishment of the Defendant by mutual consent with the Defendant.

Since the written agreement has been submitted, the Criminal Procedure Act.