The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The Defendant, at around 16:50 on July 24, 2014, driven a B B B B B car and proceeded along two-lanes in front of the D shop located in C in the following City:

In such cases, a driver of a motor vehicle has a duty of care to safely drive the steering system, brakes, and other devices of the motor vehicle by accurately operating the steering system of the motor vehicle and to change course of the motor vehicle when it is likely to impede normal traffic of other motor vehicles running in the direction of the change.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected this and caused the victim F(F, 44 years old) (hereinafter referred to as 50 years old) who was working in the same room after the defendant's vehicle immediately following the defendant's vehicle by the negligence of changing the course from the two lanes to the one-lane, and caused the victim G(50 years old) who was driving by the defendant to go into the "D" commercial operated by the victim G(50 years old) who was on the left side to avoid the car and shock.

As a result, the Defendant’s occupational negligence caused the victim FF to suffer a dysium in need of treatment for about two weeks, various dysium in need of treatment for about three weeks, etc. to the victim G, and at the same time, damaged the dysium in excess of KRW 4,434,670 to repair cost, and damaged the dysium in excess of KRW 1.8 million in total, the market price of the victim G in the commercial building.

2. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the prosecution against the injury caused by occupational negligence shall not be instituted 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 and Article 3(1) of the Road Traffic Act as an offense falling under each of the subparagraphs of Article 151 of the Road Traffic Act.