The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Of the facts charged in this case, occupational negligence.

1. In light of all the circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant is against the nature of the grounds for appeal (unfair punishment) and the agreement with the victim, the punishment imposed by the court below (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio. Of the instant facts charged, the fact that the violation of the Road Traffic Act due to the occupational negligence and the damage of property among the instant facts charged is a crime falling under Article 151 of the Road Traffic Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent pursuant to the main sentence of Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents. According to the records, the victim D, after the institution of the instant indictment, submitted to the court of the lower court on July 19, 2013, a written agreement stating that “4 million won is paid by agreement from the defendant and the defendant do not raise any civil or criminal objection for any reason after mutual consent with the defendant.” This is deemed to have expressed his/her intent not to punish the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do11339, Feb. 29, 2008).

Nevertheless, the court below did not dismiss a public prosecution against the violation of the Road Traffic Act due to the occupational injury and damage of property, and found the defendant guilty and imposed the remaining crimes and substantial concurrent crimes. The judgment below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the crime of non-compliance with an intention, or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the crime of non-compliance with an intention, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the

In this respect, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

3. In conclusion, there is a ground for ex officio destruction of the violation of the Road Traffic Act due to the occupational injury and damage of property among the facts charged in this case. The court below found the defendant guilty of both the violation of the Road Traffic Act and the remaining crimes.