The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. Facts charged;

A. On June 2, 2016, the Defendant of assault against the Victim B: (a) around 07:00 on June 2, 2016, in the name of Jung-gu Incheon Airport off the 272 Incheon International Airport departing from the Republic of Korea; (b) on the ground that he/she conducted a parking agency business on the ground that he/she operated a parking agency business in the above C shop; (c) on the ground that he/she operated a parking agency business in the above C shop, he/she called “F” in the name of “F” to the victim B (S 43) who conducts a parking agency business; and (d) the victim’s sound called “a person who works anywhere he/she works in doing so.”

As stated in “the victim”, the victim abusedd the victim, such as raising a food, breathing the victim’s bat, and breathing the victim’s bat.

B. The Defendant committed the assault against the Victim G with the name “H” at the time and place indicated in the above paragraph (a) above, and on the ground that the Defendant made the assault against the Defendant G (44) with respect to this Defendant’s parking agency business, for the foregoing reasons, on the part of the victim G (E).

“Along with sound, the victim’s bucked once with the victim’s hand floor, the victim’s bucked once, the victim’s entrance part by drinking, and blicked the victim’s bridge, and assaulted the victim by blicking the victim’s mouth once.

(c)

On June 3, 2016, around 07:00 on June 3, 2016, the Defendant against the victim I, who conducts a parking agency business in the name of “D” from the departure site of the Incheon International Airport C, for the reason that he/she was engaged in a parking agency business in C., the Defendant:

“Along with sound, the victim’s face was flive once by drinking, and the victim was assaulted at one time by drinking the victim’s marith, following the victim’s marith at one time.

2. The conclusion of the judgment is that a crime falling under Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 260(3) of the same Act. The victims after the prosecution of this case do not want the punishment of the defendant.