The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

In light of the fact that the defendant agreed in favor of the victim's assistance and the defendant's punishment, but the victim's assistance was not accurately understood about the meaning of the victim's expression of intention not to punish, the decision of the court below (three years of imprisonment and five years of suspended execution) is too uneasible and unfair.

Judgment

According to the records of this case, the victim may establish a written agreement that he/she does not want the punishment of the defendant and submit it to an investigative agency on July 8, 2015 (the 281th page of the investigation record). The victim may express his/her wish not to punish the defendant alone so long as the victim has the mental capacity to punish the victim, and it does not require the consent of the legal representative (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do6058 delivered on November 19, 2009). At the time of the preparation of the written agreement, the victim shall report the crime of the defendant to the investigative agency independently and states the damage without the legal representative's participation. The victim prepared the written agreement with the prosecutor's investigator and telephone call with the prosecutor's office on the process of preparation of the written agreement, and the defendant's agent's signature was requested by the defendant on the ground that he/she is a minor, and the victim's intent to punish the victim cannot be seen as null and void solely because he/she did not express his/her intent to punish the victim.

The crime of this case is committed by rape and coercion of a juvenile victim, and the nature and circumstances of the crime are poor, and the victim is unable to recover.