Defendant

B shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

Defendant

B If the above fine is not paid, 50,000 won.

At around 18:00 on December 7, 2012, Defendant B, who was crossing the Do newsletter due to the reason that the vehicle volume of the Ei 30 vehicle operated by the Defendant was stopped in excess of the crosswalk stop line in front of the agent of the Suwon-si, Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, 379-1, the Defendant B sustained the injury, such as the inside and outside of the inside and outside of the Do newsletter, on the ground that the vehicle volume of the Ei 30 vehicle was stopped in excess of the crosswalk stop line. Defendant B, who was a drinking, sold the inside and outside of the Do newsletter of the Defendant A at the prices of the inside and outside of the Do newsletter for two weeks.

Summary of Evidence (Defendant B)

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to A by the police;

1. The suspect A-victim photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (Submission of a medical certificate for a victim) (Defendant B);

1. Relevant Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Part concerning the rejection of prosecution under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (Defendant A);

1. Around 18:00 on December 7, 2012, the summary of the facts charged was assaulted by Defendant A and Defendant A, who was crossing the Do newsletter, on the ground that the vehicle volume of Defendant B was stopped in excess of the crosswalk stop line on the crosswalk in front of the agent of the 379-1's "Trisung Motor Vehicle" operated by Defendant B, on the crosswalk, on the ground that the vehicle volume of Defendant B stopped in excess of the crosswalk stop line.

2. In light of the judgment, the above facts charged are crimes falling under Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent pursuant to Article 260(3) of the Criminal Act. It is acknowledged that on November 18, 2013, after the prosecution of this case, the victim B, the defendant of this case, stated on November 4, 2013, that the victim B did not wish to punish the defendant A.

Therefore, the prosecution against Defendant A is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.