The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The Defendant, as C’s children, the owner of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B lending 402, managed the above lending on behalf of C. However, as the victim D(44 tax) who was 3 years old from the above lending was a director for the seven-year period, the Defendant had a good appraisal against the victim.

On March 1, 2017, the Defendant: (a) while making a telephone conversation with the victim on or around March 1, 2017, investigated why I would like to see why I would like to see, why I would see, why I would see, why I would see, why I would see, and how I would see, how I would see, how I would see, how I would see, how I would see, how I would see, how I would see, how I would see, how I would see, how I would see, how I would see, how I would see, how I would see, how I would see, how I would see, how I would see, and how I would see, what I would see, and how I would see, what you would see."

2. Determination

(a) Applicable legal provisions: Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act;

(b) Crimes of non-violation of intention: Article 283 (3) of the Criminal Act.

C. On November 10, 2017, after the prosecution of this case, submission of a written application for punishment, indicating that the injured person does not wish to punish the defendant.

(d) Judgment dismissing a public prosecution: Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act;