The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. Summary of the facts charged

A. Intimidation: (a) around 17:00 on June 17, 2015, the Defendant: (a) found the Ewing truck owned by the Defendant and the victim on the ground that: (b) on the container at which the Victim C victim D was residing in the Republic of Korea on a day after a day, while drinking alcohol while driving, and the victim had observed and reported it and controlled it; and (c) found the Ewing truck on the part of the Defendant; and (d) discarded it to death.

Preamble Doz. Doz.

“I” and “I” and “I” and “I” and “I” shall continue to make a telephone on several occasions to the victim under the influence of alcohol;

The death will be discarded.

Madern Madern Madern

“The victim was threatened” and the victim was threatened.

B. Around July 2015, the Defendant, at the end of the G Myeon Office located in the Republic of Korea, in the G Myeon Office F of the Republic of Korea, completed the meeting of this Chapter, and approximately 15 of the employees of the Myeon Office and the heads of this Chapter want to carry out an occupation-oriented death, should be discarded to the said victim.

In the union, the victim was openly insultingd by referring to a large amount of the fertilizer value to the union.

2) The Defendant: (a) around July 15, 2016, at H’s “H” located in the Republic of Korea Republic of Korea F, the Defendant had been drinking with her elderly and beer in Eastern War; and (b) the Defendant “h has been dicked;

In a large sense, the victim publicly insultingd the victim by stating that he/she will die.

2. Of the above facts charged, the crime of intimidation is a crime falling under Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent pursuant to Article 283(3) of the same Act. The insult is a crime falling under Article 311 of the Criminal Act and can be prosecuted only upon a criminal complaint pursuant to Article 312(1) of the same Act.

According to the records, it can be acknowledged that the victim did not wish to punish the defendant on April 25, 2017, which was after filing a public prosecution, and expressed his/her intention to revoke the complaint. Thus, the public prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparag. 5 and 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.