[1] The elements for recognizing the victim as having expressed his wish not to punish or withdrawn his wishing to punish in the crime of non-violation of will

[2] The case holding that it cannot be deemed that the true intent of the victim who did not wish to punish the defendant or withdraws his previous wishing to punish is expressed in a way that is obvious and reliable

[1] In order to recognize that the victim expressed his/her wish not to punish or withdraws his/her wishing to punish a person, the crime of non-competence must be expressed in a way that is obvious and reliable by the victim.

[2] The case holding that it cannot be deemed that the true intent of the victim who did not wish to punish the defendant or withdraws his previous wishing to punish is expressed in a way that is obvious and reliable

[1] Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act / [2] Articles 309 and 312 (2) of the Criminal Act, Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul District Court Decision 2001No46 delivered on March 30, 2001

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to Article 312(2) of the Criminal Act, defamation crime committed in publications, etc. under Article 309 of the Criminal Act is not so-called crime subject to victim's complaint, but so-called crime subject to victim's complaint, which cannot be prosecuted against the victim's express intent. Thus, even if victim 1 did not file a complaint against the defendant, the validity of the indictment of this case does not affect the validity of the indictment of this case.

In addition, in order to recognize that the victim has expressed his wish not to punish or has withdrawn his wish to punish, it shall be expressed in a way that enables us to believe that the victim's true will is clear, and according to the records, on January 27, 199, the victim 2 filed a complaint with the defendant on August 27, 200, and on September 26, 200, the first instance court served a writ of summons to attend as a witness on September 14, 200, and on September 14, 200, the defendant could not be present on September 13, 200, and on September 14, 200, the defendant could not have been present on the date of the complaint by 0,000, 10,000, 20,000, 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which did not dismiss the prosecution of this case is not erroneous as alleged.

2. Since it is obvious that the defendant did not file an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance because it is clearly recorded that he did not file an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendant cannot file an appeal against the judgment of the court below which accepted the prosecutor's appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing with the grounds of unfair sentencing on grounds of misconception of facts against the rules of evidence or violation of Acts and subordinate statutes, and in this case where the

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

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)