The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 6,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal (a fine of six million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the defendant ex officio, we examine the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents against Victims C among the facts charged in this case.

A. The summary of the facts charged in this part of the facts charged is as follows: “Around 20:00 on July 28, 2012, the Defendant carried out a straight line from the penteng-dong, Masan-si, Simsan-si, to the Gyeongsan-si distance. Even if the signal is an open line at the intersection, there is a duty of care to confirm and safely drive a pedestrian who is crossing the crosswalk. Nevertheless, due to the error of driving the vehicle by neglecting this, the body part of B crossing the crosswalk to the right side of the crosswalk on the crosswalk from the left side of the proceeding direction conflicts with the front part of the above vehicle, thereby causing injury, such as brain, which requires approximately two weeks medical treatment, to the passenger C (V, 22 years of age) of the said vehicle.

B. This part of the facts charged is an offense 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 punished against the victim’s express intent under the main sentence of Article 3(2) of

According to the records, a written agreement under the name of the victim C was submitted on September 16, 2012, and the said written agreement recognizes the fact that "the victim has no objection to civil or criminal matters since he/she reached a mutual agreement on the traffic accident (person)."

It is reasonable to view that the victim expressed his intention not to have the defendant punished before the prosecution of this case.

This part of a public prosecution is null and void in violation of the provisions of Acts.

The court below held that Article 327 subparagraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act applies.