The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. Facts charged;

A. At around 16:00 on May 2, 2014, the Defendant called the victim’s phone, and the victim received the request of the university and received the consent of the university and received the consent of the franchising employee for the two-day alternative leave of absence on the worker’s day, and thereby, the Defendant threatened the victim on the ground that the franchising attempted to receive the consent of the franchising employee. The franchising of all franchising our employees, both the C People’s Trial, the B People’s Trial, the B People’s Trial, and D also the People’s Trial, and the conclusion was made by brusing our employees. Whether only two c were within the said two franchising, it would necessarily be said that D would be done so, and thus, it would be clear that the franchis are dead, equally, if the spirit of D in this issue is immediately known.”

B. At around 17:00 on November 10, 2014, the Defendant: (a) called the victim at the seat of the head of Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Sungpo-si, Sungpo-si, Sungpo-si, Sungpo-si, Mapo-dong, and (b) promised that the victim object to the establishment of a trade union; (c) “In doing so, by inducing the victim to do so, he would make a new trade union through the flus of the head of the group, while inducing him to do so, and the flus of the head of the group, the flus would make a new trade union through the flus; and (d) the flus of the head of the group, the flus of the group, the flus of which the head of the group, flus the head of the group, flus the head of the group.”

2. The written agreement was submitted on April 29, 2015, which was after the prosecution of this case regarding the crime of intimidation, which is a crime of non-compliance with judgment, and the prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.