The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The Defendant in the facts charged in this case is the D representative director in the Seoul Northern-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the victim E (the victim E, South) and the victim F (the victim F (the age of 82, the remaining) are the vice-party with the trade name G in the same place.

On November 25, 2014, at around 10:25, the Defendant: (a) 10:25 on November 25, 2014, the victim E does not move to a commercial building in front of the I market located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government; (b) and (c) the victim F placed the victim F with a flick card of the content opposing redevelopment, and used the victim E at one time the victim E’s left blick with the defective part of the clause.

2. The conclusion of the judgment is that a crime falling under Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act is an offense under Article 260(1) and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 260(3) of the Criminal Act. According to the statement on the withdrawal of a complaint submitted by the victims, it is recognized that the victims expressed their intent not to prosecute the defendant on March 16, 2015, after the institution of the instant indictment. Thus, the prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act