The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The summary of the facts charged and the victim B are the Dong representatives of the Gu-si apartment C.

On May 15, 2017, at the Dong representative meeting of the above C apartment building around 19:30 on May 15, 2017, the Defendant: (a) among eight persons, such as the representative of occupants and the auditor, the Defendant did not instruct the Defendant to pay overtime work allowances to the managing director, etc.; (b) the Defendant talked that the Defendant did not direct the victim; and (c) the Defendant called “Sllurb kb kb kb.”

I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am am I am I am am I am I am am I am am I am am I am am I am I am I am am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am, I am I am I am I am, I am I am I am I am I am, I am I am I am I am I am I am, I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am we am I am I am I am I am I am I am we am we am we am we

The purpose of this article is to publicly insult the victim by openly referring to the abusiveation of the internal approval.

2. We examine the judgment, and the above facts charged are crimes falling under Article 311 of the Criminal Act and can be prosecuted only when the victim files a complaint under Article 312(1) of the Criminal Act.

In this regard, the victim B revoked the complaint against the defendant on June 29, 2017, which was after the prosecution of this case was instituted.

Therefore, the public prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act.