The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. On August 25, 2018, at around 15:37, the Defendant: (a) requested the victim D (the 35-year-old age) to deduct the kart from the kart to the kart; and (b) demanded that the kart be carried out by the employees; (c) the kart be carried out by the employees; (d) the kart was operating the kart E (the 3-year-old age), and the kart was facing the body of the Defendant, without holding the kart in the kart, and the kart was demanded by the victim.

In this regard, the victim was fluent, and the defendant committed violence by threatening the young children of the victim and the young children of the victim on the ground that the attitude of the victim's death was not expressed in mind.

2. We examine the judgment, and the facts charged pertaining to the crime as provided by Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent pursuant to Article 260(3) of the Criminal Act.

However, according to the records, on May 2, 2019, after the prosecution of this case, it is apparent that the victim has withdrawn his/her wish to punish the defendant. Thus, the prosecution against the defendant is dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.