The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. On March 6, 2016, the summary of the facts charged is to hear the victim’s phrase “I would not do so, if I would like to move I would return I would you would you would move I would return I would you would you would you would you would you would move I would you would move I would you would you would move I would you would move I would you would you would move I would you would you would you would move I would you would you would you would you would you would you would not get I would you would you would you would you would not get you would you would you would you would get you would you would you would you would get you would you would not get you would you would get you would you would get

The term "in the course of a dispute" refers to "a person who has been suffering from a dispute with the victim's knife his/her son, brue, shoulder, arms, etc. so that he/she was pushed with the victim's brue, shacked with his/her brue, shacked with the shoulder

Hand-phones made assault such as booming the snow part with balon, leaving the balon part.

2. We examine the judgment. This is a crime 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 Criminal Act. According to the records, G can be known on August 12, 2016, after the public prosecution of this case was instituted, that the victim expressed his/her wish not to punish the defendant. Thus, this part of the public prosecution is dismissed in accordance with Article 327(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.