The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

I. The Defendant and the victim C (the age of 30) of the instant facts charged are those who were related to each other.

1. On May 7, 2016, the Defendant made intimidation on the ground that the victim did not contact himself/herself on May 7, 2016, the Defendant sent the victim a text message stating that “I would like to do so even if I would like to do so, I would like to do so?” and seven copies of the victim’s b body photograph.

2. On May 11, 2016, the Defendant sent a text message stating that “A victim’s cell phone Kakaoox does not contact himself/herself on May 11, 2016, and thereby, the victim’s cell phone Kaox shall be left left if he/she disregards his/her own view.” The Defendant sent the victim’s cell phone Kakaoxa to the effect that “A victim’s cell phone oox shall be left left if he/she disregards his/her own view. Our trace that he/she ought to be crossed out without absolute support, and that he/she ought to come to know if he/she is not a person to be on the day.”

II. Judgment

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts: Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act;

2. Crimes of non-violation of intention: Article 283 (3) of the Criminal Act.

3. Declaration of non-existence of punishment after a public prosecution is instituted: Submission of a self-agreement on January 3, 2017;

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