The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

On July 24, 2019, the defendant in the factory office operated a gallon II car around 12:30 on July 24, 2019, and was able to look back from the dallon distance in front of the Jeju city to the south of the Gu from the dallon distance.

In this case, there was a duty of care to safely drive a vehicle, such as checking whether there is a vehicle driving prior to the internship, etc., on the part of a person engaged in driving the vehicle.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so and led the part of the left-hand side of the ESA driver’s car driving in front of the ESA driver’s vehicle, which was proceeding normally on the road due to the negligence of the ESA driver’s negligence, was shocked by the front part of the ESA driver’s vehicle. The Defendant destroyed the above ES350 car to be 83,623,298 won for repairing the ES350 car, which was driven on the road due to the smuggling of the ESA driver’s vehicle.

However, the facts charged in this case can not be prosecuted against the express intent of the victim under the main sentence of Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents as a crime falling under Article 151 of the Road Traffic Act. According to the written agreement submitted by the defendant on February 8, 2020, the victim G can be recognized as the fact that the victim G withdraws the expression of intent to punish the defendant to this court on February 12, 2020 after the prosecution of this case. Thus, the prosecution of this case is dismissed pursuant to Article 327(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.