Where a person withdraws his/her expression of intention after expressing his/her intention not to impose punishment for a crime of non-violation of punishment, the validity of such withdrawal.

If the victim expresses his/her wish not to punish the perpetrator once he/she has expressed his/her wish in the crime of non-violation of intention, and then has withdrawn the above declaration of intention, the intention of withdrawal shall not be effective in accordance with Article 232 (3) and (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Article 232(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

The summary of the facts charged of this case is that at around 11:30 on June 24, 1987, the defendant received a false complaint from the victim non-indicted 1 that the defendant and the non-indicted 2, her husband, her husband, she would have committed violence against the female by putting her head debt of Non-indicted 1 and her husband over the ground floor, and then she could not be prosecuted against the victim's express intention under Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Since the defendant violated Article 260 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the defendant's declaration of intention in accordance with Article 260 (2) of the same Act and Article 7 (2) of the same Act, the victim's statement that the defendant would not be subject to punishment for the defendant, and the victim's statement that the defendant would not be subject to punishment for the above defendant's wish to be subject to punishment for the defendant, and the victim's statement that the defendant would not be subject to punishment for the defendant.

Judges Kim Jong-soo