Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Around October 4, 2015, the Defendant ordered a victim D and E’s “C” in Asan City’s “F” located in Asan City B, and ordered a more drinking alcohol by placing an order, but the victim D said that the victim’s “doctrine d was the same as that he had taken” was the victim’s “hing,” and the victim D was the victim’s hing.e., “the hing and drinking is the same,” and the guidance on taxes is 10 million won within the victim’s tax amount per year. The Defendant insultingd the victims by openly hinging the victim with a large voice, such as “the hing and drinking is the same,” and the victim D’s “the hing and drinking”.