beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five months.
Sexual assault against the defendant for twenty-four hours.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (in each case, six months of imprisonment, twenty-four hours of completion of sexual assault treatment programs, and weighted number No. 1) is too heavy or (in each case, it is too heavy or it is too urgent to inspect (the Defendant).
2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.
In the crime of non-violation of intention, the victim has expressed his wish not to punish or withdrawn his wishing to punish.
In order for recognition, the victim’s true intent should be expressed in a way that enables clear and reliable testimony of the victim. Such expression of intent can be carried out even before the judgment of the court of first instance is pronounced even after the institution of public prosecution. However, the victim may not withdraw his/her wish not to punish again or express his/her wish to punish (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do3405, Sept. 6, 2007). According to the records, the victim C refers to the fact that the police officer called for “not wanting to punish” was dissolved after the police officer notified of the complaint procedure (see Article 93 of the evidence record), while the victim received a police investigation on Sept. 30, 2016, under the police investigation of the same case, the victim did not appear to have expressed his/her wish to punish the police officer of this case (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do3405, Sept. 6, 2007).
On September 30, 2016, the victim made a statement to the effect that he/she wishes to punish the defendant during the police investigation, but the victim may not withdraw the statement unless the victim clearly expresses his/her wish not to punish the defendant to the police officer in charge as above.
Therefore, the lower court, in accordance with Article 327 Subparag. 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, raises objection.