Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The punishment of the accused shall be determined by ten months of imprisonment.
provided that this ruling has become final and conclusive.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, and one year of short term) is too unreasonable.
B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.
2. Ex officio determination
A. It is obvious that the Defendant was a juvenile under Article 2 of the Juvenile Act at the time of the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below on September 18, 1997, but it has reached the age of majority in the trial.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below that sentenced the defendant to be sentenced to an irregular sentence was no longer maintained.
B. Meanwhile, the crime of assault is an offense falling under Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 260(3) of the same Act.
Therefore, if the victim withdraws his/her wish to punish the defendant in the original trial, the lower court should dismiss the prosecution without having to judge the substance of the case.
Furthermore, in order to recognize that the victim expressed his/her wish not to punish a person or withdrawn his/her wish to punish a person, the victim’s true intent should be expressed in a way that enables clear and trustable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do1809, Jun. 15, 2001). In cases where the victim is a minor under the age of his/her legal representative, whether the victim’s intent is included in the victim’s intent should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the type and content of the subject case, the victim’s age, the actual subject and content of the agreement, the circumstances before and after the agreement, the legal representative and the attitude of the victim, etc.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5658 Decided May 13, 2010). According to the foregoing legal doctrine, CI, as the father of the victim F (CH) of the crime of assault, is a legal representative of the case after the prosecution of this case, as follows: