The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a person who works as a brokerage assistant for “D real estate” under Article 114 of the Seongdong-gu Seoul Building C, Gyeyang-gu, Gyeyang-gu, and the victim E is a person who works as the head of the above C Building Management Office.

On July 6, 2012, the Defendant damaged the honor of the victim by publicly pointing out false facts with the term “E Director” to F of the security guards of the C building in the building of Gyeyang-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Gyeyang-gu, Seoul Metropolitan City.

B. On July 7, 2012, the Defendant damaged the reputation of the victim by publicly pointing out false facts to the G working as an electrical engineer of the above C building on the first floor of the building, stating that “A chief of the management office need not hear the statement immediately because he/she is well aware, and must be well aware only with the president within the commercial building.”

C. On July 11, 2012, the Defendant damaged the reputation of the victim by openly pointing out false facts, stating that “A meeting of the above C building security guards is being held everyday, but the head of the management office is driving away the warden to waste the management expenses” to H who works as a security guard of the above C building in front of the above C building.

On July 13, 2012, the Defendant, at the above C building office, damaged the victim’s reputation by openly pointing out false facts, stating that “A person who works as an agent for accounting of the above C building shall immediately leave the management office E and prepare the details of the deposit and withdrawal for the last three years, as he/she will begin to start anew.”

2. In conclusion, the above facts charged constitute a crime falling under Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 312(2) of the Criminal Act.

However, according to the records, it can be recognized that the victim E withdraws his/her wish to punish the defendant around April 3, 2013 after the prosecution of this case was instituted. Thus, the prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.