Each public prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The facts charged in this case

A. At around 22:00 on July 29, 2013, the Defendant: (a) invited Ed’s forum held by Ed’s Ed’, and completed lectures, and requested that the victim F, the victim G be asked for a defect in the conversation only in a locking manner; (b) the victims were refused, and (c) the victims’ “d’s plagiarism as if he was rheatized by Ed’s p.m., four doctor’s degree, and head’s plagiarism; hereinafter the same shall apply) were publicly insultingd.”

B. At around 22:00 on July 30, 2013, the Defendant: (a) visited the above place and asked the victims who emitted from the forum to talk; (b) but was rejected again; (c) “A doctor’s degree of thinking is not sufficient; and (d) professional books were read, but the reading volume was insufficient; (d) the Defendant publicly insultingd the victims by saying, “A doctor’s degree of thinking is not a doctor’s degree of thinking; and (e) whether a party is a doctor’s degree of thinking; and (e) his head is not sufficient; and (e) the victim’s ability to talk.”

2. The judgment is a crime falling under Article 311 of the Criminal Act, which can be prosecuted only when the victim files a complaint pursuant to Article 312(1) of the Criminal Act. According to the records of this case, the victims appeared in this court after the prosecution of this case and revoked their respective complaints. Thus, each of the prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act.