The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons for dismissing public prosecution

1. On May 23, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of 1.5 million won as an assault committed by the Seoul Southern District Court on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant assaulted the Victim C and was admitted by the victim’s report.

On October 5, 2013, around 03:50, the Defendant discovered the victim who had been sentenced to a fine as above due to the victim’s report on the packaging in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul. The Defendant saw that the victim was frightened and frighted, and that “the victim was frightened, and a fine of 2 million won due to width,” and assaulted 2 to 3 times by taking the victim’s flab.

As a result, the defendant assaulted the victim for the purpose of retaliation against the provision of investigation orders in relation to the investigation of his criminal case.

2. Article 5-9(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides a criminal investigation team, such as a complaint or accusation, in relation to the investigation or trial of a criminal case against him/herself or another person, with a view to preventing the provision of a criminal investigation team, such as a complaint or accusation, statement, testimony or submission of materials, or preventing the submission of a criminal investigation team, such as a complaint or accusation, or cancelling a criminal complaint or accusation, or making a false statement, testimony or submission of materials submit a false report or accusation, the crime of assault under the Criminal Act is punishable by imprisonment with prison labor for a more than one year, which

Here, whether an actor had such an objective ought to be reasonably determined in light of social norms by comprehensively taking into account the following factors: the offender’s age, occupation, and other personal factors; the motive and process of the offense; the means and method of the offense; the content and manner of the act; the victim’s personal relationship; and the circumstances before

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12055 Decided June 14, 2013). In the instant case, we examine whether the Defendant had “the purpose of return”.

Examination of the accused's suspect, C, and E, respectively.