2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

A. On October 9, 2017, the Plaintiff waitinged for C with a dry field of pine trees owned by the Defendant, the Plaintiff met 2-3 times from the Defendant in front of the said dry field of pine trees, thereby suffering from injury that requires approximately two weeks of treatment (hereinafter “the instant injury”), and was influenced in the part of the knick field.

B. On October 9, 2017, the Plaintiff visited the Hospital of Jeollabuk-do to receive medical treatment, and was diagnosed as NOS (Not Owise Sc and typists) of face clinically, and received a diagnosis on October 10, 2017, respectively, at the Hospital of Jeollabuk-do and Jeonbuk University, on January 11, 2018, and at the Hospital of Jeollabuk-do, on January 12, 2018, the Plaintiff received medical treatment at the E-type and Jeonbuk University Hospital. < Amended by Act No. 15032, Oct. 10, 2017; Act No. 15034, Jan. 12, 2018>

C. On October 9, 2017, around 10:30, the Defendant: (a) thought that the Plaintiff was trying to take a sense of driving in front of the scam field owned by the Defendant, which is located in Namnam City F; (b) thought that the Plaintiff was able to take a part of the scambling part of the Plaintiff’s scambling part at two times; (c) in consideration of the Plaintiff’s scambble part of the scambing part of the Plaintiff’s left scam, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 300,000 for the crime of injury on the part of the scambling part, which requires treatment for about 14 days on the part of the Plaintiff’s hand, and the above summary order

(hereinafter “instant summary order”). D.

On November 6, 2017, G of the Defendant: (a) in collusion with C on November 6, 2017, the Plaintiff attempted to take the reduction of C from the bar trees owned by the Defendant, the father of G; and (b) the Plaintiff considered the network, but filed a complaint against the Plaintiff and C as an attempted special larceny due to suspected facts that G discovered the fact and failed to achieve that intention.

However, on March 19, 2018, the prosecutor, who belongs to the office of the branch office of the former branch office of the District Prosecutors' Office, issued a non-prosecution disposition against the plaintiff and C, who is suspected of having been accused of the violation of evidence

G filed a complaint against the theft and insult of the plaintiff in addition to the above special larceny attempts, but the same is also the same.