A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants are employees of F, a foreign company established by the Korea Highway Corporation, who belong to F.

B. On January 26, 2013, around 22:00, the Plaintiff and Defendant B brought a dispute over the issue of working schedule in front of the branch office of the Korea Highway Corporation, which was located in G in North Korea, in front of the branch office of the Korea Highway Corporation, and at the time, Defendant B left the paper World Cup cited by the Plaintiff, and took one face of the Plaintiff by drinking.

C. On January 28, 2013, the Plaintiff was above B.

Defendant B filed a complaint with Defendant B, who suffered injury from Defendant B in the course of the dispute over the port entry, and Defendant B, upon undergoing the suspect investigation, submitted at the defense room the Plaintiff’s face at the defense room, and submitted the written diagnosis of injury caused by the Plaintiff’s act and the written statement of Defendant C and D (which means that the Plaintiff was the head of Defendant B at home) and expressed his intent to punish the Plaintiff unless the Plaintiff revoked the complaint.

The Plaintiff received a summary order of KRW 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won for each of the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff was under the charge of “Defendant B’s face at around two weeks on the left side in need of approximately two weeks of treatment due to the bags of polyethyl ethyl material used by the Plaintiff in her hand, which caused the Plaintiff’s luxe lux; and (b) the Defendant B received a summary order of KRW 50,00,00,00,000,000,000,000,000,000 won for approximately ten (10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0

(Seoul District Court Decision 2010Na7675 dated October 8, 2013). e.

The Plaintiff filed a request for formal trial against the above summary order. On June 11, 2014, the Daegu District Court of the first instance rendered a judgment not guilty of the Plaintiff on the ground that each of the statements made by Defendant B and C and the investigative agencies of the Defendants are difficult to believe.

A prosecutor shall make such a judgment.