The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The summary of the facts charged C is divided into the dispute resolution D and the merchants' association, and the victim E is the party of the dispute resolution D and the defendant are the merchants' association.

On May 11, 2017, the Defendant reported that the damaged party in F, in F, in order to inform G of the entry into a vacant shop managed by G, and that the damaged party was a merchant's meeting before the damaged party, who was a member of the merchants' meeting before the damaged party, returned to the KIND to the KIN and instead of the above stock company, and then taken as to whether there was any error for the Defendant. However, in the foregoing case, the Defendant reported to the merchants of the said market, “Ie YY, Iek, G,” which was reported by the merchants of the said market;

자슥아, 깡패새끼가 따로 없네,

A tin-protruding shots separate from others;

It was not far known from the day of the photograph, math, math, brosta, brosta, ethbrost, ethbrosta, brosta, and brosta.

“Publicly insulting the victim.”

2. Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the case subject to prosecution: A written agreement was submitted on June 29, 2018 that the injured party does not wish to punish the Defendant after the prosecution of this case under Article 260(3) of the Criminal Act.

Judgment dismissing Public Prosecution: Article 327 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act