The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles) in itself means that the injured party expressed his/her intent to punish when he/she reported a criminal fact to an investigative agency, and there is no need to file a complaint in the form of a written complaint. Since, E submitted a written complaint stating a maternal G as the complainant, along with a written statement attached, and expressed his/her intent to punish the defendant, referring the injured party as the victim of the instant case in light of the content of the written complaint, the lower court dismissed the prosecution of the instant case on the ground that there was no legitimate accusation of E in this case.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the existence of complaint.

2. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the victim was the victim E in the instant case, and even if the victim respondeded to the purport that “to punish the Defendant,” under the police and prosecutor’s investigation, it is merely merely a statement as a person who filed a complaint on behalf of the mother G, and that there was a victim E’s complaint in the instant case.

As can not be seen, in this case, a judgment dismissing the public prosecution of this case was rendered on the ground that the prosecution procedure constitutes null and void in violation of the provisions of law, in the absence of a complaint against a crime which may be prosecuted only upon the filing of a complaint.

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and its reasoning, the above judgment of the court below is just.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion that there was an error of misunderstanding of the legal principles in the judgment below dismissing the prosecution of this case is without merit (the prosecutor applied for the amendment of indictment to add G as the victim of the facts charged of this case at the time of the trial, but it had already been done by the statement of the defendant.