The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The Defendant: (a) around 07:00 on January 20, 2013, the Defendant stated that he was a person who was a B-S or a guest; (b) the victim C (the remaining person of 42 years old) who was engaged in a bath manager and oral cleaning inside the shot-gu, Ansan-gu, Ansan-si, Ansan-si, as he first laid off the shot-gu to the shot-si; and (c) the victim made a defect of the horses, such as protesting against the shot-gu, by stating that he was “the shot-gu”.

Therefore, the Defendant found the president in order to resist out of the roban, but failed to do so and tried to do so due to the lack of tending, and the victim was assaulted by the victim, such as assaulting the victim’s face on his/her hand with the lusium, i.e., “Is the lusium . Is the lusium,” and assaulting the victim’s lusium beyond the lusium.

2. The above facts charged are crimes falling under Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act and cannot be prosecuted against the victim's express intention under Article 260 (3) of the Criminal Act. In the crime of non-prosecution, in order to recognize that the victim expressed his wish not to punish or withdraws his wishing to punish, the victim's genuine will should be expressed in a way that is obvious and reliable. Such expression of intent can be expressed to an investigative agency before the judgment of the first instance is rendered even after the prosecution is instituted. However, it cannot be said that the victim withdraws his wish not to punish again or expressed his wishing to punish again after the explicitly indicated one time.

(See Article 232 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Supreme Court Decision 2007Do3405 Decided September 6, 2007, etc.). Reviewing the case and the records, the victim expressed his/her intent to punish the defendant at an investigative agency, but the victim was compensated for medical expenses from the defendant on February 25, 2013, which was after the prosecution of this case was instituted.