The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant operated the restaurant called “C” in the Namyang-si, Namyang-si, and used 1 maz in that restaurant, so in such a case, there was a duty of care to prevent any damage to other people, such as combining a flaz, as a person who raises a dog.

Nevertheless, on March 28, 2018, at the back end of the above restaurant on March 28, 2018, the Defendant, by negligence, neglected to do so, asked the victim D (e.g., 55 years old) to the right side of which the above dog was unfolded, and the left part of the buckbucks, etc., where the victim needs to be treated for about three weeks.

2. Determination

(a) Applicable legal provisions: Article 266(1) of the Criminal Act;

(b) Crimes of non-violation of intention: Article 266 (2) of the Criminal Act;

C. On August 28, 2018, after the prosecution of this case, a letter of agreement is submitted to the effect that the injured person does not want the punishment of the defendant.

(d) Judgment dismissing a public prosecution: Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act;