The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The summary of the facts charged was around October 29, 2014, around 23:39, the Defendant: (a) taken a taxi operated by the victim B (59 years of age); (b) arrived at the Government City of destination, at around 01:06, Oct. 30, 2014; and (c) demanded the payment of the charge from the victim; (b) continued to look back around the victim as if the victim would pay the charge; and (c) sought the victim’s statement that “I will know why money would be?” and “I would see why I would see why I would see?? I would see why I would see why I would see?? I would see why I would see?? I would see why I would know? I would see? I would see why I would see? I would see? ? I would ? I would see why I would escape? ? I would see ? I would like to see the victim’s neck.

2. The above facts charged are crimes 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 Act. According to the records, it is obvious that the victim withdraws his/her wish to punish the defendant by submitting a written agreement stating the victim's wish not to be punished after the prosecution of this case. Thus, the prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.