If a divorce action is withdrawn after the complaint has been filed, the effect of the complaint shall be effective.

Since the simple notification suit is a valid condition for the annulment of marriage or the continuation of divorce lawsuit, even if the lawsuit for divorce was filed at the time of the complaint, if the lawsuit for divorce is withdrawn, it will be the same as the first lawsuit for divorce, and the simple notification suit will lose its effect retroactively.

Article 241 of the Criminal Act, Articles 229, 232, and 327 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 76Do1278 delivered on June 8, 1976, Supreme Court Decision 81Do1975 delivered on October 13, 1981

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Kang Jae-hwan

Gwangju District Court Decision 85No504 delivered on July 19, 1985

All the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of first instance are reversed.

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal by defense counsel are examined.

The simple notification suit is a valid condition, so even if the lawsuit for divorce is withdrawn at the time of the complaint, it shall be the same as that of the first lawsuit for divorce, and the simple notification suit shall lose its validity retroactively (see Supreme Court Decision 76Do1278, Jun. 8, 1976; Supreme Court Decision 81Do1975, Oct. 13, 1981). According to the records of this case, the non-indicted 1, who is the complainant of this case, is recognized as having withdrawn the entire appeal against the defendant on Jan. 22, 1985, after filing a request for divorce with the Gwangju District Court for a judgment on Aug. 27, 1985, the notification suit of this case shall lose its validity. Accordingly, since the public prosecutor's indictment against the defendant constitutes a case where the prosecution procedure becomes null and void due to the lack of the indictment condition, the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the first instance shall not be maintained.

Therefore, without examining the Defendant’s grounds of appeal, all the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of first instance are reversed, and this case is sufficient to be decided based on the records, so a party member is to directly decide in accordance with Article 396

The summary of the facts charged in this case is that the defendant, who was married with the non-indicted on June 9, 1954, was married with the non-indicted on the same day, and was married with the co-defendant of the first instance court around 03:00 on August 6, 1984, around 03:0 on August 6, 03:0 on August 7, 1984, around 03:0 on May 00 of the same month, around 03:0 on the first half of the same year, around 03:0 on the first half of the same year, around 03:0 on the first half of the same year, around 03:0 on the first half of the same year, around 03:0 on the second half of the same year, and between 03:00 on January 1, 1985 and the first half of the same year, and thus, Article 39:27 of the Criminal Procedure Act shall be dismissed by applying Article 39 of the same Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)