A. It is difficult to view that the victim’s intent not to punish the assault, among the facts charged in the instant case, was expressed in a way that is obvious and reliable.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which dismissed this part of the prosecution is erroneous and adversely affected by the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In order to recognize that the victim expressed his/her wish not to punish or withdraws his/her wishing to punish in the crime of misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the victim’s declaration of wish not to punish shall be expressed in a way that is obvious and reliable. Such declaration of wish may be carried out to an investigative agency if the judgment of the court of first instance is declared even after the prosecution is instituted, but it may be carried out if it is before the judgment of the court of first instance is declared. However, it is impossible to withdraw his/her wish not to punish again after the express indication on

(2) According to the records and records, the victim expressed his/her intention that "the victim would submit a letter of withdrawal of complaint to the defendant" while communicating with the police officer on March 26, 2019 (Evidence 37 pages), and the victim appeared at the border border police station around March 27, 2019 and expressed his/her intention that "the victim would no longer find the defendant" will cancel the complaint to the criminal defendant. However, around March 26, 2019, the victim prepared a statement to the effect that "the victim would drive away the victim and will cancel the complaint to the same end," and the victim would cancel the complaint by making a telephone call with the police officer on March 26, 2019 (Evidence 37 pages).