On September 2012, the Defendant assaulted the victim by her hand on the ground that the victim refused to proceed a divorce at the Yansan-gu Seoul apartment house No. 102, 302, and 302 inside the inside room of the Jeonsan-gu, Jeoncheon-gu, 2012, “Isn't have to go beyond the inside, why Is you would see?” and that the Defendant followed the Defendant.

B. On September 2012, the Defendant, at the end of the apartment ward, assaulted the victim’s hair at the time of her hair, on the ground that the Defendant stated that “I would see why I would see, why I would see, why I would see, and how I would see how I would see, what I would see.”

C. On early 2010, the Defendant, who was not divorced from the above apartment inside the apartment house, was scambling to the Defendant, and was assaulted by her hand at the time of the victim’s scam.

In 2010, the defendant did not have been divorced in the above apartment in the middle of the 2010, but tried to find out why he would drive away from the above apartment, and assault the victim's head head at hand and at the time of the victim's cream.

E. Around October 2012, the Defendant assaulted the victim, who had his breath’s breath’s breath in the apartment at the end of the end of the same year, with his hand, who was unable to get the victim to get the victim, such as the victim’s head debt, the victim’s body was cleeped, and the victim’s body was clicked.

F. On November 2012, 2012, the Defendant used the victim’s head collection, and assaulted one time by taking the victim’s head, in his/her hand, that he/she was unable to use the victim’s written waiver in the above apartment building.

2. The conclusion of the judgment is that a crime falling under Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act is not prosecuted against the clearly expressed will of the victim under paragraph (3) of the same Article.

However, this case.