The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The facts charged in this case

A. On November 2016, 2016, the Defendant sent a DNA message stating that “If the Defendant was pregnant with a victim B’s son who was in an internal relationship, the victim did not arrange the relationship with the wife of the victim, but was posted with the victim’s wife’s wife at the account of the victim’s wife, the victim’s wife was posted with the victim’s wife at the same time. B, using the Defendant’s mobile phone, the Defendant sent a DNA message stating that “if you want to go back, you will immediately am back to C with the victim’s mind that you would have to go back to the face of the Defendant’s cell phone.” The Defendant threatened the victim by notifying the victim of the harm that he would have known the victim’s wife.

B. Around October 21, 2017, the Defendant sent E message stating that he/she would arrange a marital relationship with the victim’s wife at an infinite place on or around October 21, 2017, and that he/she continued to maintain an infinite relationship without arranging the relationship with his/her wife. However, using the Defendant’s mobile phone, the Defendant’s cell phone to use the victim’s cell phone, “routs, governance, hacks, hacks, hacks, hacks, hacks, and hacks,” and “The Defendant filed an application for a profin relationship with the victim,” and the Defendant threatened the victim by notifying the victim of the harm that he/she would inform the victim’s wife of this fact.

2. Determination

(a) Applicable provisions of Acts: Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act;

(b) Crimes of non-compliance with will: Article 283 (3) of the Criminal Act.

C. A non-prosecution of punishment: On November 7, 2019, after the prosecution of the instant case, the “written application for non-prosecution of punishment” containing the victim’s expression of non-prosecution of punishment was submitted to this court.

Judgment dismissing public prosecution: Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act