If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

On June 13, 2013, at around 02:18, the Defendant: (a) laid the cell phone from “Enogle” of the victim’s Doo-si C’s operation to KRW 700,000,000 in the market price owned by the victim, thereby damaging it.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to photograph the victim's mobile phone;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 366 of the Selection of Punishment;

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

1. The dismissal part of the prosecution under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. On June 13, 2013, the Defendant: (a) discovered a mixed victim in a room located behind the front of the calculation stand from the “Enonode room” operated by the victim D (Inn, 57 years of age) of the Gunori-si C’s Mari-si on the following day; and (b) was able to rape the victim in a timely manner.

The Defendant: (a) when the victim tried to use the victim’s her arm’s length from the room to the direction of the room, opened the victim’s arm’s length, opened the room in excess of the room; and (b) prevented the victim from resisting the victim with two arms by using her canter; (c) exempted the victim’s chest from the victim’s her chest and panty panty bucks, and attempted to commit rape with the victim’s her buck, but the victim was not able to commit such rape. However, the Defendant did not go against the Defendant’s arm’s length and her resistance.

Accordingly, the defendant attempted to rape the victim.

2. The above facts charged are crimes falling under Articles 300 and 297 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 11574, Dec. 18, 2012) and can be prosecuted only when a victim files a complaint under Article 306 of the same Act. According to the written agreement submitted to this court, it can be acknowledged that the victim, who is the complainant, revoked the complaint against the defendant on August 6, 2013, which is after the prosecution of this case.

Therefore, this part of the prosecution is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act.