The case holding that the contents of the written agreement are explicitly expressed that the defendant's wish not to punish the defendant.

The case holding that the contents of the written agreement explicitly express the intention not to punish the defendant.

Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning Traffic Accident Settlement

Defendant

Prosecutor

Gwangju District Court Decision 93No267 delivered on October 21, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the records of this case, the non-indicted LLC Co., Ltd., the victim of this case, originally agreed on the traffic accident of this case with the defendant on March 3, 1992 through the above gambling screening, and on March 3, 1992, the title of the Motor Vehicle Traffic Accident Agreement, "Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents" is stated in the title immediately bottom of the Motor Vehicle Accident, and the victim and the perpetrator submitted a written agreement signed and sealed as they agreed on the traffic accident of this case to the Ycheon Police Station, the investigative agency of this case. Thus, the above victim expressed clearly the intent not to punish the defendant, and even if the above victim expressed his wish to invalidate the above agreement through the above gambling screening on April 4, 1992, the prosecution procedure of this case cannot be deemed to be null and void since the victim could not express his wish to punish again after explicitly expressing his wish not to punish the crime of no punishment. Thus, the prosecution procedure of this case is in violation of the provisions of law.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the withdrawal of expression of intent which wishes to punish for a crime of non-compliance, such as the theory of lawsuit.

In addition, the precedents of party members cited by the theory of lawsuit are different from the case, and it is not appropriate to invoke the case in this case.

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

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)