The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. On January 5, 2014, at around 05:00, the Defendant, at a “D” restaurant located in the Gumisisi-si, the Defendant: (a) received a report of 112 that the Defendant under the influence of alcohol was not going to a restaurant even after the Defendant’s business was completed; (b) sent back to the Defendant and solicited the Defendant to return home; (c) the Defendant was sent to the Defendant at the place where the said restaurant proprietor H and the said F was located, the Defendant sexualized the victim by publicly fluoring the victim “This processed Paris would come to go to the Defendant; (d) Gluxin Paris; and (e) fluoral fluor; and (e) fluor, the Defendant sent to the Defendant at the place where the said restaurant proprietor H and the said F.

2. The judgment is a crime falling under Article 311 of the Criminal Act and can be prosecuted only when the victim files a complaint under Article 312(1) of the Criminal Act. Since the victim expressed his/her intent not to prosecute the defendant on January 20, 2015, which was after the prosecution was filed, the judgment is rendered as ordered under Article 327(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act.