[1] The case holding that in a case where the complainant made a statement that the original purpose of the complaint in the prosecutor's investigation was to punish all the offenses prior to the receipt of the complaint, which constitutes a crime subject to victim's complaint, and thus, it is not permitted in a case subject to victim's complaint since it constitutes a crime subject to victim's complaint

[2] The case holding that a legitimate effect of an accusation is recognized in case where the complainant submits to an investigation agency a written statement of the defendant's accusation that leads to the time when the defendant's accusation and the supplementary statement that did not explicitly express his intention of punishment, after the complainant's statement of accusation and supplementary statement of accusation are made

[1] Article 241 of the Criminal Code, Article 327 of the Criminal Procedure Act / [2] Article 241 of the Criminal Code, Article 327 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 81Do2133 delivered on October 13, 1981 (Gong1981, 14513)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul High Court Decision 2005No1758 delivered on November 1, 2005

The part of the judgment of the court below on the issue of police officers in the middle of September 2003 and police officers in the middle of July 2004 is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The remaining appeals are dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Summary of the facts charged and the judgment of the court below

As to the facts that the defendant knew that he was the non-indicted 1's spouse and the non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 4's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 4's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 4's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 4's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 4's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 4's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 4's non-indicted's non-indicted's non-indicted's non-indicted's non-indicted's non-indicted's non-indicted's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted.

2. The judgment of this Court

A. As to the first and second copies

The judgment of the court below is not acceptable in the following respect.

According to a certified copy of the family register duly examined at the court below (No. 2005 type No. 8141 type No. 71 type No. 71 of the Investigation Record), it can be known that Non-Indicted 2 and Non-Indicted 1 reported the divorce on September 6, 2004. Thus, the complaint filed on the same day shall be deemed a valid complaint on the same day. It is obvious that the complaint was filed before the lapse of six months from April 16, 2004 from the date on which the complainant became aware of the correspondence, and the court below erred by misapprehending the rules of evidence as to this point, thereby making a judgment on the legality of the indictment.

However, according to the defendant and non-indicted 1's statement to supplement the defendant's complaint submitted by the complainants and the non-indicted 1's statement to supplement the defendant's complaint, the complainants only once within the "Monnomo," located in Sin, Sin, Seoul around July 2004, one time within the defendant's vehicle located in Seoul, one time within the defendant's house located in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seoul, and one time within the defendant's house located in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seoul, and one time within the defendant's house located in the defendant house located in Seocheon-gu, 2003, and one time within the meaning of the judgment of the court below that the defendant's statement was not accepted until the defendant's complaint was accepted at the end of 3 times before the end of February 2004 (see, e.g., Supreme Court's opinion to supplement the defendant's complaint, which had no effect on the defendant's complaint.

Since the judgment of the court below on the legality of prosecution against the second multiple copies of the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of law as seen earlier, the appeal on this point is with merit.

B. As to the third passage

The judgment of the court below is not acceptable in the following respect.

According to the records, it is evident that the complainant submitted the above written statement to an investigative agency on September 10, 2004, which is the time when the defendant and the non-indicted 1 made a statement of non-indicted 1, which is the case after the defendant and the non-indicted 1 made a statement of the intention to punish the third party, and there is no other indication that the complainant explicitly expressed the intention to punish the third party. However, the complainant submitted the written statement to the investigative agency on September 10, 2004, which is after the defendant and the non-indicted 1 made a statement of the complaint and the supplementary statement of the statement of the indictment submitted by the complainant. Thus, the court below dismissed the prosecution on the grounds that there is no legitimate accusation against the third party, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles as to the complaint of the crime of adultery.

This part of the appeal is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the second and third parts is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination, and the remaining appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)