1. The lawsuit in this case is due to a violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Kamera, etc.) and intimidation.

On January 6, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a petition with the Suwon Police Station for the judgment of ex officio as to the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Kameras), and the claim for damages caused by intimidation with the content that the Defendant threatened the Plaintiff’s family members, etc. to send photographs taken by the Plaintiff’s body.

The police officer in charge conducted an investigation by hearing the statements of the plaintiff and the defendant and confirmed evidence, and transferred the case to the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office on the grounds that the defendant violated the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Kamera Use Screening) and the suspicion of intimidation is recognized.

On February 10, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant attended the date of the first criminal conciliation at the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office held in the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office on February 10, 2014, and agreed that the Defendant did not contact the Plaintiff any longer and immediately delete C and other materials, and did not make any subsequent intimidation, etc., and the Plaintiff withdrawn the complaint against the Defendant and agreed not to raise any civil or criminal objection (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

On February 21, 2014, the public prosecutor in charge of the above case suspended the indictment on the ground that the Plaintiff expressed his/her intent not to have the Defendant punished on February 10, 2014, on the grounds that the Plaintiff expressed his/her intention not to have the Defendant punished. As to intimidation, the instant case cannot be punished against the victim’s express intention. The Plaintiff rendered a non-prosecution disposition on the ground that he/she expressed his/her intention not to have the Defendant punished on February 10, 2014.

[Reasons for recognition] According to the above facts-finding, Gap evidence Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 24, 26, and Eul evidence Nos. 5, and Eul evidence Nos. 5, the plaintiff violated the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes between the defendant and the defendant on February 10, 2014, and violated the above facts-finding.