A. In around 16:00 on August 3, 2013, the Defendant: (a) expressed the attitude that the Defendant would have opened a valve of an empty LPG gas route and put it out into fire on the ground that he was unable to find a mobile phone charging device for his transfer; (b) the Defendant: (c) expressed the attitude that the Defendant was “prisoned, dead, and dead,” and (d) expressed that the Defendant would have opened a valve of an empty LPG gas route and put it out.

B. At around 18:00 on August 31, 2013, the Defendant: (a) committed the crime of the preceding paragraph by assaulting the victim, i.e., having reported the Defendant to commit the crime of the preceding paragraph; (b) was fluencing the victim’s head debt by her hand; and (c) committed the victim’s neck by lush hand.

2. Of the above facts charged, the crime of intimidation is a crime falling under Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act, and pursuant to Article 283(3) of the Criminal Act, the crime of assault is an offense falling under Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 260(3) of the Criminal

According to the records, it is recognized that the victim expressed his intention not to be punished against the defendant after the indictment of this case. Thus, the prosecution of this case is dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.