When a defendant has made a statement of facts that are the grounds for rejecting the formation of a crime by law in accordance with Article 323(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the decision should be clearly stated in the reasons for the judgment.

According to the records, the defendant's defense counsel in the appellate brief of the court below stated that the defendant's non-appeal in this case was born to leave the defendant's speech and assault against her husband, but it was argued that the defendant was forced by her husband's coercion. Thus, the judgment of the court below did not make any judgment on this issue, so the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the omission of judgment.

Therefore, the appeal of this case, which seems to include the purport of misunderstanding this point, is well-grounded, and the appeal of this case should be mitigated or exempted ex officio, and if the defendant voluntarily surrenders to the court prior to the judgment or the final judgment of disciplinary action of a case which was not raised pursuant to Articles 157 and 153 of the Criminal Act, the punishment should be mitigated or exempted. However, according to the records, it is obvious that the defendant has led to the confession that the defendant had already been absent from the investigation stage of the case which was brought against the defendant in this case. Thus, it is illegal that the court below did not reach the

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)