Defendant

The sentence of sentence against A shall be suspended.

Defendant

The prosecution against B is dismissed.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

On October 15, 2013, A around 07:41, at a D restaurant located in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, injured the victim B (Nam, 27 years of age) who is between the Marine Corps’s postship and the days on which he did not receive a telephone before the towing, and caused the victim B by drinking, and caused the victim B to suffer approximately three weeks of the face of the victim B.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The suspect interrogation protocol of the police as to B;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of a medical certificate of injury in preparation of doctor E;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of penalties;

2. Penalty surcharge of 1,000,000 won to be suspended; and

3. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act (50,000 won per day) of the Criminal Act for the inducement of a workhouse.

4. The rejection of prosecution pursuant to Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (the first offender of the defendant A, the confession of the crime and reflects the mistake in depth while making a confession, the victim B compensates for three million won, and the victim B does not want the punishment against the defendant, and other factors such as the age, character and conduct, etc. of the defendant A);

1. The summary of the facts charged is that Defendant B, at the above date and time and at the above place, committed assault against the victim A by breaking the head debt of the victim A (ma, 27 years of age) on the grounds of the foregoing reasons.

2. The judgment is a crime falling under Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 260(3) of the Criminal Act. According to the written agreement on the preparation of the victim A, the victim A may recognize the fact that he/she has withdrawn his/her wish to punish the defendant B on November 13, 2013, which is after the institution of the instant indictment.

3. According to the conclusion, the prosecution against Defendant B is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.