The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The victim of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles clearly expressed the intention of not to punish the investigator in charge of the case, and the third party, who is not the principal, the victim's father or descendant cannot withdraw the said intent of not to punish the victim.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to whether there was an intention of not to impose punishment or thereby affecting the conclusion of judgment.

The sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The victim expressed his wish not to punish for the crime of violation of the law of mistake and misunderstanding of legal principles.

In order to recognize that the victim has withdrawn his/her wish to punish or have withdrawn his/her previous wish to punish, the victim must be expressed in a way that is obvious and reliable.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Do1809 delivered on June 15, 2001). The court below rejected the above assertion on the following grounds: (a) under the title "2. judgment in the judgment of the court below", the defendant asserted the same as the grounds for appeal of this case, the court below legitimately adopted and examined evidence at the court below; and (b) the judgment on the facts and the above assertion.

On May 12, 2017, an investigator in charge of this case sent letters again to confirm whether the victim's intent not to punish is clearly indicated, ② the victim expressed his/her intention not to give an explicit reply to the investigator in charge of this case, and ③ the victim expressed his/her intention not to punish if an agreement is reached through his/her father later, and ③ the victim was receiving an outpatient treatment on or around May 12, 2017, and did not agree with the insurance company of golf courses.