The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A concerning the crime of bodily injury caused by each business and actual injury shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be reversed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds for appeal by Defendant A, the lower court deemed that the conciliation under Article 36(3) of the Act on the Remedies for Damage from Medical Malpractice and Mediation of Medical Disputes (hereinafter “Medical Dispute Mediation Act”), among the victims of the instant case, cannot be prosecuted against their express intent under Article 51(1) main text of the Medical Dispute Mediation Act in the case of victims whose conciliation protocol was prepared by agreement during the conciliation process pursuant to Article 37(2) of the Medical Dispute Mediation Act, or against the victim’s express intent under Article 51(1) of the Medical Dispute Mediation Act. However, the “applicant (victim)” recorded in each conciliation decision and conciliation protocol between Defendant A and some victims of the instant case does not want criminal punishment of the respondent (the respondent) if he/she voluntarily performs his/her obligation (the obligation to pay money) under this subparagraph.

“The provision does not constitute an expression of non-original intent to punish the victims.”

The decision was determined.

In the crime of non-violation of intention, a person who has expressed his wish not to punish or has withdrawn his wish to punish.

In order to be recognized, the victim’s genuine intent should be expressed in a way that enables clear and reliable understanding (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do3166, Sept. 13, 2012). The lower judgment is justifiable in light of such legal doctrine.

In doing so, there was no error by misapprehending the legal principles on punishment for the crime of non-violation of intent.

(2) The court below held that since mediation was concluded pursuant to Article 36(3) of the Medical Dispute Mediation Act between Defendant A, the victim A, and the victim W respectively, Defendant A could not institute a public prosecution against the above victims against the express intent of the above victims pursuant to the main sentence of Article 51(1) of the Medical Dispute Mediation Act. In relation to whether the above victims expressed their intention not to institute a public prosecution, the court below held that Defendant A and the above victims were not charged with all civil and criminal liability against Defendant A.