Each public prosecution against the Defendants is dismissed.

1. The summary of the facts charged is the owner of the business run by Defendant A, and Defendant B is the employee of the business team belonging to the headquarters C.

Defendant

A On October 10, 2016, at around 10:35, the Defendant assaulted the victim by breaking the body of the victim, while cutting off the victim, on the ground that the victim B took the inside of the store on a mobile phone with his/her mobile phone without permission, on the ground that the victim B photographs the inside of the store on his/her mobile phone.

Defendant

B At the same time and place as referred to in the preceding paragraph, while the Defendant marks the internal photograph of the store with a cell phone such as the preceding paragraph, the victim A prevented him from taking it, and assaulted the victim by dividing the shoulder of the victim by two arms listed on the victim, the victim, etc.

2. Each of the offenses committed by the Defendants is a crime falling under Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 283(3) of the Criminal Act. According to the court below’s non-application of punishment bound in the trial record (agreement), the Defendants submitted on December 5, 2016, which was the date the prosecution of the instant case was instituted, to the effect that the Defendants do not want to be punished against the other party. Accordingly, the Defendants dismissed each of the offenses against the Defendants pursuant to Article 327(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.