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. Basic facts (no dispute exists);

A. The Plaintiff, at the Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government’s “D Singing shop”, was a person who worked as a braceer, and around August 8, 201, the Plaintiff was punished by dispute with E, the president, around 23:30 of the said main shop.

On August 8, 2011, the Plaintiff: (a) around 23:30, around August 23:30, and on the ground that the Plaintiff paid fats to the music, the Plaintiff fat the fats of E, fating the fats into the floor of E, fating the fats of E, leaving the fats of E, and going through the body of E through the fats, thereby requiring treatment for 2 to 3 weeks.

E, at the above date and at the above place, determined that “I would die with her natives in Korea,” the Plaintiff was “F, etc., where I had been eating out of a nearby restaurant, and had her eating out, then she was shakening the Plaintiff’s face on the road near the above main shop, and she was in common with F, and led the Plaintiff to a light dial dump, etc., for which two weeks of medical treatment is required.

B. In this regard, the Plaintiff filed a petition for summary order due to a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint injury), and the E and F filed a petition for a formal trial by the Plaintiff, etc. on April 4, 2013. A judgment of conviction of a fine (Seoul Southern District Court 2012Da1347) was rendered on April 4, 2013.

The appeal (Seoul Southern District Court 2013No604) and appeal (Supreme Court 2013Do7934) by the plaintiff et al. against this is dismissed, and the above conviction was finalized on October 17, 2013.

Criminal facts established are as follows.

C. Defendant B is a police officer affiliated with the G police station affiliated with the Defendant’s Republic of Korea who was in charge of the investigation of the above case.

2. The police officers, including Defendant B, did not investigate the Plaintiff’s 112 report details, E’s monetary records, and E’s correspondence, etc.; ② did not secure witness’s statement at a hospital where E, etc. threatened the Plaintiff; ③ E behavior on the Internet homepage of the Plaintiff.