명예훼손
The prosecution of this case is dismissed.
1. Notwithstanding the fact that the Defendants, from March 26, 2015 to March 20:21:00 on the same day, from the day from March 26, 2015 to the day 21:00 of the same day, the Defendants did not have the wind between F and the victim H in the first floor of GLA operated by the Defendants in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F, a fraud, at the first floor of GLA operated by the Defendants in Seocho-gu, Seoul, but at the same place where the private teaching institute teachers and students have several hundreds,
“,” and “at least, on November 3, 200, the two have been seaed in the hotel, and dives also in the hotel.
“A sound,” while private teaching institute teachers get out of the horse, “F and Hagabonds are winded.”
“The victim’s reputation was damaged by openly pointing out false facts by sound.”
2. The victim has expressed his wish not to punish or withdrawn his wishing to punish in the crime of non-violation of intention in judgment.
In order for recognition, the victim’s genuine intent should be expressed in a way that enables it to be clear and reliable, and such expression of intent can be carried out even before the judgment of the court of first instance is pronounced even after the institution of public prosecution. However, no withdrawal of a wish not to punish again after the institution of public prosecution is indicated clearly once, or the wish to punish is expressed (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do3405, Sept. 6, 2007). The crime of defamation in a false statement is a crime falling under Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act, which is an offense falling under Article 312(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, the victim H submitted a written withdrawal of complaint to the Seoul Military Installations Police Station on December 17, 2015 to the effect that the victim H does not wish to punish the Defendants. Thus, the Defendants’ declaration of wishing to punish had been lawfully withdrawn.
Accordingly, H’s previous wish to punish the Defendants is not valid even if H expresses its desire to punish the Defendants.
3. Accordingly, this conclusion is followed.