Of the facts charged of this case, the prosecution against assault is dismissed.

On March 12, 2013, around 08:35, the Defendant held the DF 3rd floor in Spocheon City Co., Ltd. on the ground that the victim E (the 46-year-old) who is an employee of the said agricultural cooperative would have a trial cost for the progress of the meeting, and caused the victim to have an inner part of the victim's inner part of the part of the 3th floor of the 2-day medical treatment, and caused the victim to have an inner part of the 2-day medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the injury diagnosis certificate;

1. Relevant Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Penalty fine of 500,000 won to be suspended;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the confinement in a workhouse;

1. Rejection of public prosecution pursuant to Article 59 (1) of the Criminal Act (including the fact that the defendant has no previous record other than the previous one on two occasions, the fact that he has recognized his mistake and reflects it, the fact that an agreement has been made with the victim, the degree of the crime, the circumstances of the crime, etc.);

1. At around 18:00 on March 13, 2013, the Defendant, on the first floor of the Dang AF in Macheon-si, Mancheon-si, Dacheon-si, engaged in a conflict with the victim E (the age of 46) in relation to the performance of his duties, and committed violence against the victim.

2. The above facts charged are crimes falling under Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 260(3) of the Criminal Act. According to the records, it is recognized that the victim submitted a written withdrawal of the lawsuit on October 30, 2013, which was subsequent to the institution of the indictment of this case, to the effect that the victim does not want punishment against the defendant. Thus, the indictment of this case is dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparag. 6

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