1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On December 5, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Military Police Station of the Military Military Station of the Republic of Korea to the effect that “A vehicle B was in conflict with a cart he/she was leading to, and during the process, the Plaintiff’s search of the contents in the cart by force on the ground that the said passenger was forced to search the contents of the car on the ground that he/she was unable to have his/her house at his/her house.” The Plaintiff filed a complaint with the purport that “a request to punish the said vehicle as coercion, coercion, coercion, interference with business, coercion, coercion, coercion, etc.”

B. On January 22, 2015, the Military Police Station: (a) it is difficult to specify specific criminal facts regarding the above accusation; and (b) concluded a written opinion with a dismissal opinion on the ground that the accusation alleged by the complainant is merely a minor dispute that may sufficiently occur at the general traffic accident site; and (c) sent it to the prosecution.

C. On January 30, 2015, the prosecutor in charge of the affiliated branch office of the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office decided not to prosecute (No. 2015 type No. 1888) according to the above opinion.

On February 25, 2015, the plaintiff appealed to the chief prosecutor of the Seoul High Prosecutor's Office, but the chief prosecutor of the Seoul High Prosecutor's Office decided to dismiss the appeal on March 26, 2015.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff filed an application for the ruling with the Seoul High Court on April 6, 2015, but was dismissed on July 13, 2015, and re-appealed to the Supreme Court on July 29, 2015, but was dismissed on September 11, 2015.

E. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Seoul High Prosecutor’s Administrative Appeals Commission (Seoul High Prosecutor’s Administrative Appeals Commissions (Seoul High Prosecutor’s Administrative Appeals Commissions 2015.5.56) on May 19, 2016, which requested re-investigation and prosecution since the decision on non-prosecution becomes invalid due to the illegality of the reasons for non-prosecution and the lack of investigation.