If a written petition demanding a court to punish a prison fact is submitted, whether it is valid as a complaint (negative)

A complaint shall be filed with a public prosecutor or judicial police officer in writing or orally, so even if the victim presents a written statement to the court in which the defendant is examined to indicate the correspondence and to have the defendant punished as a witness, or made a statement to the effect that he/she will be punished by the defendant against the examination of the judge, as a witness, it shall not be effective as a complaint.

Article 237(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 83No2062 delivered on December 29, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

A complaint shall be filed in writing or orally with a public prosecutor or judicial police officer (Article 237(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act). Thus, even if the victim made a statement of facts constituting a crime to the court in which the victim tried the defendant and expressed his/her intent to punish the defendant, it shall not be effective as a complaint.

According to the records, the non-indicted 1 made a statement to the first instance court of this case to the effect that it is clear that the non-indicted 1 made a statement to the court of this case stating the fact of communication at the time, time, and place of the attached document at the request of the defendants, and submitting a written petition to request the defendants to be punished by strict punishment, and the testimony is made as a witness. However, the non-indicted 1's submission of the above petition or testimony is not effective as a complaint, and there is no other evidence to find that there is a legitimate accusation by the complainant against the above facts.

If so, the prosecution against the above-mentioned facts is instituted without a legitimate complaint, and the procedure is invalid in violation of the provisions of the law.

The court below is justified in its conclusion that the procedure for instituting a public prosecution against the above facts constitutes null and void in violation of the provisions of the Act, and it is reasonable to conclude that it constitutes a case where the procedure for instituting a public prosecution against the above facts constitutes null and void in violation of the provisions of the Act. Thus, the court below's error is not affected by the conclusion of the judgment dismissing the public prosecution against the above facts. Thus, it is therefore groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeong Tae-tae (Presiding Justice)