The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. In the facts charged, the Defendant raised the door from the Defendant’s house located in C at the time of opening the door. Since the Defendant’s house is a road for pedestrians in front of the Defendant’s house entrance, there was a duty of care to prevent pedestrians from breaking the door by correcting the entrance so that pedestrians do not leave the door open, and by preventing them from opening the door door door.

Nevertheless, at around 11:50 on May 2, 2015, the Defendant neglected to perform the above duty of care at the above Defendant’s house, opened the entrance, and opened the entrance, and caused the opening to the entrance by negligence not to prevent the opening of the entrance, and caused the opening to the right side and arms of the victim D (W, 84 years old) where the Defendant was faced in front of the house of the above Defendant’s house.

After all, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim by the above negligence during about nine weeks of treatment, following the right side in need of multi-presidential treatment.

2. The facts charged in this case, which are the crimes falling under Article 266(1) of the Criminal Act, shall not be prosecuted against the clearly expressed will of the victim under Article 266(2) of the Criminal Act.

In such a case, the victim explicitly expressed his intention not to punish the defendant around April 22, 2016, which was after the prosecution of this case was instituted, and thus the prosecution is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.