In order to recognize that the victim expresses his/her wish not to punish or withdraws his/her wish to punish in the crime of non-violation of intention, the victim shall express his/her wish in a way that is obvious and reliable, and withdrawal of his/her wish to punish after the institution of a public prosecution shall be made with respect to the court prior to the pronouncement of the first instance judgment.

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of failing to punish an employee, etc., among the facts charged in the instant case, on the grounds that the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of failing to punish an employee, etc., inasmuch as it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of failing to punish an employee, etc., inasmuch as the lower court, among the facts charged in the instant case, found that (i) the act of violating the Labor Standards Act (e.g., delayed payment of wages, etc.) and (ii) the act of violating the former Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act (excluding the portion dismissed).

In addition, according to the records, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance and asserted only unfair sentencing as the grounds for appeal.

In such a case, the argument that there is an error of mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles in the judgment below is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.