1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Details of the case

A. At around 10:10 on July 13, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting that the instant accident was the driver of the Oraba (hereinafter “instant accident”); on May 21, 2015, the Plaintiff was notified of the completion of internal investigation by the competent Seocho Police Station, and on March 10, 2016, submitted a written complaint to the Seocho District Public Prosecutor’s Office in the Chuncheon District Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Defendant filed a complaint, stating that “The unfluord vehicle caused the shock of the Orabab.”

B. On July 25, 2016, the first branch office in the Chuncheon District Public Prosecutor’s Office rendered a non-prosecution disposition (not guilty due to lack of evidence) against the accusation of “violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Doing Vehicles)”.

C. On August 3, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a civil petition for requesting the Defendant to re-examine the instant accident (hereinafter “instant civil petition”), and even thereafter, filed a civil petition with the National Examination Board several times in relation to re-investigation of the instant accident from September 2, 2016 to November 4, 2017.

On August 29, 2017, the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission respondeded to the Plaintiff to the effect that “the Plaintiff filed a civil petition at least 71 times from January 4, 2015 to June 27, 2017, and the Defendant’s continuous treatment of civil petitions pursuant to the Civil Petitions Treatment Act on 14 occasions, and it is difficult to deem that the treatment of repeated civil petitions is unreasonable pursuant to Article 23 of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act.”

E. On September 29, 2017, the Defendant issued a notice of the result of reinvestigation to the effect that “the Plaintiff, as shown in attached Table 1, does not discover any new evidence and fact-finding that could change the results of the investigation by the competent police station during the process of the civil petition investigation,” and received the notice on October 10, 2017 from the Plaintiff to the effect that “the primary time would be avoided by reflecting the objection raised by the applicant (civil petition)” (hereinafter “the notice of the results of reinvestigation”).

F. The Plaintiff on October 10, 2017 and October 18, 2017.