The judgment below

Of the judgments of the court below against Defendant A, each of the crimes against Defendant A, 2019Kadan422, and 2020 Godan64.

A. Defendant A1) Since the victim Q and U expressed his intention not to punish Defendant A, each assault committed against the victim Q and U should be dismissed. 2) The lower court’s punishment (each of the crimes in the original trial 2019Da422 and the crimes in the first and second decisions 2020 Godan64 as to the crimes in the first and second decisions 20 years of imprisonment and 2020 Godan64 as to the crimes in the second decisions 1 and 2020 Godan64 as to the crime in the lower court’s sentencing (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the misunderstanding of legal principles, the part of the assault committed by Defendant A(Defendant A) constitutes the so-called crime of anti-competence, and there is an error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles in the original court which found the guilty of the victims despite their expression of non-competence of punishment. 2) In light of the misunderstanding of facts (Defendant A, B), witness A, witness A’s statement in each investigation agency, witness AA’s investigation agency, and witness A’s statement in the original court, and the circumstances recognized thereby, the court below found the guilty of all the charges of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. (joint injury) against Defendant A and B’s Q, but it erred in the misunderstanding

3) The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants (defendant A: imprisonment of two years, and imprisonment of ten months, Defendant B, and C; imprisonment of eight months, suspension of execution of two years, and community service work of each of the Defendants is too uneasable and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Article 260(3) of the Criminal Act provides that “The crime of paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent.” As such, the crime of violating Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act constitutes the crime of non-violation of will.”

On the other hand, the expression of wishing to punish or withdraw the expression of wishing to punish in the crime of non-violation of punishment can be made before the judgment of the court of first instance is rendered (Article 232(1) and (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act), and the absence of the expression of wishing not to punish is passive.