The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. Around December 26, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around 14:31 on December 26, 2013; (b) even though there was no intent or ability to pay the price in the D entertainment tavern located in Nam-si C, the Defendant acquired pecuniary benefits equivalent to the above amount by failing to pay the victim E the sum of KRW 675,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, c 240,000,000, and KRW 35,000,000,000, and the sum of KRW 675,00,00,00,000.

2. According to the records of this case, the prosecutor discovered the fact that F had misrepresented A, and corrected the Defendant’s indication in the indictment of this case from A to F as a mother, who is the mother, as the mother, the effect of the indictment of this case is to F from the beginning, and the prosecution of this case is not effective against F, who is the mother, and it does not affect the prosecution of F.

However, A, after receiving notification of summary order, has obtained the status of the defendant in the form of procedural acts such as requesting formal trial after receiving notification of summary order. However, A, who is the mother, did not have a legitimate institution of public prosecution. Therefore, A, subject to analogical application of Article 327 subparagraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, shall be dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.