협박
The prosecution of this case is dismissed.
1. The summary of the public prosecution is whether the Defendant, at around 19:53 on August 7, 2013, was aware that the Defendant was guilty to the victim C (63 years) at an influence place, and whether the Defendant, on a cell phone, “I am, Chewing, she has a few hundreds of the remaining fluences;
이 호로 새끼야, 이 개호로 새끼, 씨 발 놈 아, 니가 뭔 디 나를 죽여 불러야, 야, 이 새끼야, 내 앞에서 얘기해, 개새끼야, 내가 너를 죽여 블 라니 까, 개새끼야, 이런 느작 없는 새끼, 야 씨 발 놈 아 떳떳하면 나타나라 고 호로 새끼야, 전화 뭣한 디 씹냐!
From around that time to May 14, 2014, “the transmission of voice messages,” as well as intimidationd the victim more than four times in total, such as the list of crimes in the attached Table.
2. Determination is an offense falling under Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 283(3) of the Criminal Act.
Accordingly, according to the records, the victim may recognize the fact that he/she expressed his/her wish not to punish the defendant on April 5, 2016, after the prosecution of this case was instituted.
Therefore, the public prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.