Defendant

B shall be punished by a fine of 50,000 won.

Defendant

B If the above fine is not paid, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

B and C (Suspension of Prosecution on October 28, 2016), on the front day of the “E main store” located in Ma, 01:25 on September 18, 2016, around 2016, Defendant B, in both hands, pushed the body of Defendant B, thereby cutting the A’s face and head over the floor. C, in drinking, was cut off a bridge, and she was flicked by a son’s son’s son F (33 years old) of this C’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s

As a result, Defendant B assaulted victims jointly with C.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant B’s legal statement

1. A protocol concerning the examination of each police suspect against C, A, or F;

1. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each damaged part of the photograph;

1. Article 2 (2) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act concerning the crime, Article 2 of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc., Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the selection of fines;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The part dismissing a public prosecution under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act against the order of provisional payment

1. On September 18, 2016, the summary of the facts charged against Defendant A, Defendant A, on the top of the “E main store” located in D at Macheon-si on September 18, 2016, on the ground that the victim B (23 years old) was fluenced, and on the ground that the victim B (23 years old) was fluenced, the victim’s hand floor was tamped once.

Accordingly, Defendant A abused the victim.

2. The above facts charged constitute Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, and thus, Defendant A cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 260(3) of the Criminal Act.

According to the statement of the suspect interrogation protocol against B prepared by the assistant judicial police officer, the victim B expressed clearly his/her intention that he/she does not want to be punished for the defendant A on September 23, 2016, prior to the prosecution of this case.

Thus, the prosecution against the defendant A is instituted.