The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. In the facts charged, the Defendant attempted to calculate the five salary bars if he/she was placed in the display stand around the display stand, and if he/she was placed in the convenience store in the operation of the victim C (74 tax) and the victim D (63 years old) at around 04:00 on February 2, 2018, and the E store in the operation of the husband and wife of the victim D (63 years old), and then, he/she would not have to go against the victim D.

“” has been subject to paragraph (1).

Accordingly, while the defendant expressed a desire to the victims, and has been punished for a dispute, whether the defendant "Is this two-half and the same parents as the other parents of the party" from the victim C(74 tax).

“If I wanted to hear the horses, 3 encloseds were laid down on the floor where the victims live, and continued to gather one sealed paper, and assaulted the victims’ face.

2. The facts charged in the instant case are the crimes falling under Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s explicit intent pursuant to Article 260(3) of the same Act.

However, after the prosecution of this case, the victims expressed their intent not to be punished against the defendant on June 19, 2018 and June 21, 2018.

Therefore, the public prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.