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.

1. The Plaintiff asserts that “The Defendant assaulted the Plaintiff before the post office located in Incheon as of April 29, 2016 according to the strengthening of the Incheon Reinforcement-gun around 23:00, and brought the Plaintiff in the upper part of the Plaintiff’s face and the body. As such, the Plaintiff suffered a significant mental loss, the Defendant should pay consolation money of KRW 1,50,000 and delay damages to the Plaintiff.”

According to the records of Gap evidence No. 1 (certificate of the result of disposition of the case), although the defendant was found to have received a disposition of suspending prosecution for the assault from the Incheon District Prosecutors' Office on July 28, 2016, it is hard to prove that the defendant's act of assault was not enough to prove that the defendant's act of assault was committed, and that the defendant's act of assault was not sufficient to prove that the plaintiff suffered mental damage to the extent that the monetary victim needs, and it is difficult to view otherwise even if the records and images of evidence No. 2, 10 through 14 are displayed.

[No. 2 (the summary of the case in question of the confirmation center for the confirmation of the fact of the accident) The plaintiff at the crosswalk prior to the 384 reinforced Incheon reinforced Eup around April 29, 2016, as the strengthening Eup of the Incheon reinforced Eup around 23:0 on April 29, 2016, the plaintiff shouldered with the defendant as the defendant, 30 meters, and the mold distance is the end of the moment when the defendant tried to unfold with the defendant, and the end of the wind.

The plaintiff's face and bomb assaulted the plaintiff's face and bom.

“Although the content is written, it is merely stated the details of the Plaintiff’s report, it is difficult to determine the credibility of the contents of the report accurately because it was made on June 16, 2016 near the two months earlier than April 29, 2016 that the Plaintiff’s report was assaulted.

The Plaintiff appears to have claimed that the evidence Nos. 10 and 11 (each photograph) was the body of the Defendant inflicted on the Plaintiff. However, it is difficult to find out which circumstances the Defendant used to assault the Plaintiff, and it is difficult to determine the degree of the body of the Plaintiff.

In addition, the remaining evidence submitted by the Plaintiff is assaulted by the Plaintiff.