According to the reasoning of the judgment below, according to the agreement on the preparation of the victim filed in the records, the court below can recognize the fact that the complaint on rape against the defendant was revoked. The victim stated in the court of first instance that the victim was denied the agreement by leaving the defendant's family intimidation and the tagted with the defendant's family intimidation in the court of first instance. However, according to the witness's testimony at the new point of the witness at the court of first instance, it is recognized that it was made by free will, so the part on rape is dismissed.

However, as a result of the review of the record, the theory of lawsuit agreement has been resolved smoothly between the complainant and the defendant (the defendant) on the whole of the facts of the complaint, so it is limited to the document stating the purport that the complainant and the defendant (the defendant) agree not to raise any objection thereafter, and the document is submitted by the counsel of the defendant to the court of first instance on November 28, 1979, and the above agreement is submitted to the court of first instance on January 29, 29, and the victim who is the complainant is forced to leave the court of first instance on January 4, 80, 29, which means that the above agreement has no intention of cancellation of the complaint. Thus, the above agreement maintains the wish to punish the defendant, and therefore, regardless of whether it was written by the free will of the complainant, the cancellation of the complaint can not take effect. However, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the cancellation of the complaint.

Therefore, the arguments are with merit, and they are remanded to the Daegu High Court which is the original court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Presiding Justice (Presiding Justice)