The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The court does not judge on the facts charged by a public prosecutor or on the contents of a complaint filed by a person who has the right to file a complaint. Thus, even in a case where a person who has the right to file a complaint has filed a public prosecution by constituting a case subject to a complaint subject to a complaint subject to a complaint, if the public prosecutor institutes a public prosecution, the court shall ex officio investigate and examine whether the facts charged are valid in the case subject to a complaint subject to a complaint subject

In this case, Article 233 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which provides for the principle that complaint and revocation of complaint in an offense subject to victim's complaint, is naturally applied. If there is legitimate revocation of complaint against the accused and the accomplice in the facts charged, the revocation of complaint shall be effective against the accused.

The lower court upheld the first instance judgment dismissing the instant prosecution on the grounds that: (a) even if the victim filed a complaint against the Defendant and F with the Defendant in violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes subject to victim’s complaint (a special indecent act by compulsion), insofar as the prosecutor prosecuted the Defendant for the crime of indecent act by compulsion under Article 298 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 11574, Dec. 18, 2012), which is an offense subject to victim’s complaint; (b) it cannot be readily concluded that F is an accomplice and not guilty of indecent act by compulsion; and (c) it cannot be concluded that F’s revocation of complaint against F is effective against the Defendant under Article 233 of the Criminal Procedure Act

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court’s decision is justifiable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the scope of application and requirements of application under Article 233 of the Criminal Procedure Act, or failing to satisfy the grounds, or exceeding