The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The Defendant is a person who runs a secondhand shop with the trade name of B in the facts charged.

At around 11:00 on February 11, 2012, the Defendant laid a dog into B (S) located in Ansan-si C (S).

The defendant had a duty of care to connect and prevent risks because the above opening could inflict harm on the people who found the above openings.

Nevertheless, while the victim D (ma, 50 years old) who was found to have been negligent in selling recyclables, the Defendant got out of the land at the between trokes, the owner owned by the Defendant (the type of the passenger voting) was carried on three occasions by carrying the victim the part on the right side.

In this respect, the body of a bridge, etc. has inflicted an indemnite injury on the treatment date.

2. We examine the judgment. The facts charged of this case are crimes falling under Article 266(1) of the Criminal Act, and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 266(2) of the Criminal Act. The records of this case show that the victim has withdrawn his/her wish to punish the defendant on March 22, 2013, which is after the prosecution of this case. Thus, the prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparag. 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.