The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. On February 18, 2013, at around 17:55, the Defendant: (a) was found in order to receive a return of the Defendant’s mobile phone and the cash card in the case from the victim’s new purchase of the victim’s mobile phone and the Defendant’s mobile phone in exchange for one’s mobile phone at the victim’s father’s 322 and 802 (the age of 46). On February 18, 2013, the Defendant: (b) got off the entrance door to the victim while going back to the front; (c) took part of the victim’s left part and left part of the victim’s cell line; (d) took part of the victim’s cell line; and (d) took part of the victim’s cell line and the victim’s cell line with the victim’s cell line with the victim’s cell line with each other; and (d) took part of the victim’s cell line with the victim’s cell line with each other; and (e) took part of the victim’s cell line.

2. We examine the judgment. This is a crime falling under Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 260(3) of the Criminal Act. According to the statement of “written withdrawal of complaint” attached to the trial record, the victim withdraws his/her wish to punish the defendant on August 2, 2013, which is after the prosecution of this case. Thus, the prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.