The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. From February 201 to March 2, 201, the Defendant: (a) forced the Defendant’s home located in the Cheongnam-gun, Busan-gun, to take knife the knife of the victim D (at the time, 51 years old) who is a disabled person of Grade 2; (b) forced knife the Defendant’s home, led the Defendant to the Defendant’s home room; (c) opened the inside door door to the Defendant; (d) displayed the video where the Defendant’s sexual act was committed against the Defendant; and (e) prevented the victim from resisting by threateninging, as the victim would inflict any danger and injury on the outside of the room; and (e) sexual intercourse with the victim once.

2. In conclusion, the above facts charged constitute an offense falling under Article 297 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 11574, Dec. 18, 2012; hereinafter the same) and can be prosecuted only upon a victim’s complaint under Article 2 of the Addenda of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 11574, Dec. 18, 2012); Article 306 of the former Criminal Act.

Article 232 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that a complaint may be withdrawn prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the person who has withdrawn the complaint shall not file a new complaint. The expression of intent to revoke the complaint is sufficient to do so in writing or orally in accordance with Articles 239 and 237 of the Criminal Procedure Act, as the declaration of intention by the person who has the right to file a complaint to the investigation agency or the court which withdraws the intention to seek the punishment of the offender. Thus, as long as the person who has the right to file a complaint appears to have expressed his/her intent to revoke the complaint in writing or orally, it shall be deemed that the complaint has been lawfully withdrawn

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do425 Decided April 13, 2007, etc.). According to the records, the victim expressed his/her intention that he/she continued to answer the repeated question of police officer's "on December 5, 201, who was investigated by the police on December 5, 201," and that he/she would not want punishment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do425, Apr. 13, 2007).