The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

On October 27, 2012, the Defendant in the factory room: (a) around 03:45, U.S. 601-25, U.S., Ulsan-dong, U.S., Ulsan-dong, U.S., on the front side of the agricultural and fishery product market located in the same day on the same day: (b) around 03:20, the Defendant was boarding in the “C” business taxi operated by the victim B (hereinafter “C”), and arrived at the front day of the same 301-17-day route, at the destination; and (c) the victim “the taxi driver is a full Doe, a retail, a dump, and a retail store.”

At this time, the victim determined that “Isson’s son’s retail and Domine is” and the victim’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s right side, twice the victim’s son’s son’s right side, and once the victim’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s on-site investigation

The reason for dismissing the prosecution is that the facts charged in this case falls under Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act and can be prosecuted only upon the victim's complaint under paragraph (3) of the same Article.

However, according to the records of this case, on November 10, 2012, prior to the prosecution of this case, the victim may recognize the fact that he expressed his intention to revoke the complaint by mutual consent with the defendant. Thus, the prosecution of this case is dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act.