The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

The Defendant is a person engaging in driving of CPoter2 cargo vehicles.

On November 19, 2013, the Defendant driven the above cargo vehicle on the 10:20 on the 19th 10th 10th 10th 10th 10th 19th 20, and moved to the road from the fronter of the SK General Energy.

In this case, there was a duty of care to confirm whether a person engaged in driving of a motor vehicle is a motor vehicle driving in good condition and to safely drive the motor vehicle.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and did not discover the letobane driven by the victim D (year 79) who is going to the letori from the le to the letori from the le to the letorithal by negligence, and received the front part of the above letobane from the back of the above cargo vehicle operated by the Defendant.

As a result, the Defendant suffered injury, such as double dumming, double dumming, etc., which requires treatment for more than three months, due to the above occupational negligence, and caused the injury to the victim, such as recognition and functional disorder, behavior control disorder, etc.

Judgment

The above facts charged are crimes falling under Articles 3(1) and 268 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, which cannot be prosecuted against the victim's express intent under the main sentence of Article 3(2) of the same Act. According to the traffic accident agreement bound in the trial records, the victim can recognize the fact that he/she has withdrawn his/her wish to punish the defendant after instituting the prosecution of this case. Thus, the prosecution is dismissed pursuant to Article 327(6) of the Criminal Procedure