The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. At around 10:20 on August 22, 2012, the Defendant: (a) in front of the office in the Jeju-si B Victim C (YYA) (YA) D Industry site; (b) in front of the office in which the victim would not repay his/her obligation; (c) obstructed the vehicle in front of the vehicle in which the victim was driving; (d) 2 times the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in which the Defendant was in possession; (d) 3-4 times the vehicle glass; (e) 3-4 times the vehicle glass; and (e) 3-4 times the vehicle glass on the ceiling of the vehicle; and (g) 3 times the vehicle in front of the upper part of the vehicle in drinking, the Defendant threatened the said victim by drinking it with the money inside this ground for this year.”

2. The above facts charged can not be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 283(3) of the Criminal Act as an offense falling under Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act.

However, on March 27, 2013, the victim, after filing the prosecution of this case, submitted a written agreement that prevents the punishment of the defendant.

Therefore, the prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.