beta
Text
The prosecution of this case is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant did not receive KRW 35 million in money while making money transactions with the victim B (n, 46 years of age) over several times.
At around 05:19 on August 31, 2014, the Defendant found the above apartment on the ground that the Defendant did not repay the amount of money that the Defendant had received from the victim’s contact at the agreed date, and that he had expressed the attitude that the Defendant had expressed the Defendant’s risk of harm and injury to the victim four times in total, as shown in the list of crimes (1) like in the list of crimes (i), such as “Chos, hys, and humsing to pay the amount of money,” and that he had expressed his desire to do so.
B. On August 28, 2014, at a place where it is difficult to know the place where the U.S. was unknown, the Defendant expressed his/her attitude that he/she would have had any harm to the victim 19 times in total, as shown in the list of crimes (2) such as: (a) with his/her cell phone calls from the victim’s cell phone, and (b) with the victim’s explanation, such as “ception years, old age, full payment of money, late payment of money, mad, which will be the width of the shock and last warning.”
C. Around 20:00 on September 12, 2014, the Defendant, on the grounds that paragraph (a) is the same as that of the instant case, expressed the Defendant’s attitude of “chilling” to the victim, i.e., “c., f., year of growth, bitch f., year of bitch f., year of bitch f., year, year, year, and year,” and expressed the Defendant’s attitude that he would have any harm to the victim on three occasions.
2. The above facts charged can not be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 283(3) of the Criminal Act as an offense falling under Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act.
According to the letter of withdrawal of a complaint received on January 13, 2015, the victim may recognize the fact that he/she has withdrawn his/her wish to punish the defendant after the indictment of this case was instituted.
The public prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.