All of the prosecutions of this case are dismissed.

1. The Defendant, at around 16:00 on February 17, 2014, injured the victim’s reputation by openly pointing out false facts by stating that “The Defendant was a laundry business owner E and his/her spouse, etc., who had no fact that the victim D had engaged in an act of sexual intercourse, etc. for monetary consideration.”

At around 16:30 on the same day, the Defendant: (a) committed an act of sexual intercourse, etc. for monetary consideration by the victim D; or (b) did not have any fact of fraud; (c) however, the Defendant identified the victim as the victim when several persons, such as the beauty art proprietor H, etc. hear, and thereby, damaged the victim’s reputation by openly pointing out false facts.

At around 18:40 on February 19, 2014, the Defendant: (a) took gates around the victim D’s house located in the IO building 101, and damaged the victim’s reputation by openly pointing out false facts by publicly pointing out false facts, even though the victim did not engage in any conduct, such as sexual intercourse, etc. for monetary consideration; (b) the Defendant, despite the absence of the victim’s sexual intercourse, she refers to the victim’s H and the number of persons of Mart delivery; and (c) the victim was heard.

2. Each of the facts charged in the instant case is an offense falling under Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 312(2) of the Criminal Act.

According to the records, it is recognized that the victim D withdraws his/her wish to punish the defendant by submitting a written withdrawal of the complaint on April 2, 2014, which was after the prosecution of this case. Thus, pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the victim D withdraws his/her wish.