The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. On August 22, 2016, the Defendant: (a) at the residents’ conference room in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan City Dannam-si Seoul Metropolitan City Do Danitty Center; and (b) at the victim D (48 taxes) with respect to the selection of apartment CCTV-related companies, the Defendant made a defect in speaking that the Defendant and the other managing director’s opinion were able to support the victim’s opinion; (b) the Defendant made the victim’s statement that he/she was able to see, “the victim was able to see, she was able to do so; (c) the victim was able to fluen the victim’s statement that he/she was able to do so; and (d) the victim was able to fluen the victim’s public fluor, she was fluored

2. Article 311 of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts charged for judgment: A judgment dismissing a public prosecution to revoke a victim's complaint on April 17, 2017, which is after the institution of public prosecution under Article 312 (1) of the Criminal Act (Article 327 subparagraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act).