Nevertheless, the Defendant, at around 01:12 on August 30, 2019, asked the victim B’s telephone number which was disputed as a matter of ordinary debts at an influence site, 'Bp Sheb Sheb Sheb Sheb Sheb, and then thrown by hanging (defluence) the inside and outside of the phone, and then thrown by hanging it.

at the original note.

(Cheong) Dub fch fch fch fch fch fch farb far farb far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far farb far farb far far far

In addition, from September 22, 2019 to September 22, 2019, the text, and sound that arouses fear or apprehensions through 33 times in total, as shown in the attached Table of Crimes, were sent to the victim, including the transmission of voice messages, i.e., the gue D’s death, bar, B’s family malone, and sarbbing sark sark.

2. The facts charged in the instant case are crimes falling under Articles 74(1)3 and 44-7(1)3 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc., and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent pursuant to Article 74(2) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc.

However, according to the records, a written agreement was submitted by the victim on June 18, 2020, which states that the defendant does not want to be punished after the indictment of this case was instituted. Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes the time when the victim expressed his wish not to prosecute a case which cannot be prosecuted against the victim's explicit intent.

Therefore, the prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.