beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The prosecution of this case is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The court below rendered a conviction against the defendant on the ground that the agreement prepared by the victim could not be known that the agreement was actually prepared by the victim, although it was submitted by the court below that the defendant did not want the punishment of the defendant prepared by the victim, and thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misunderstanding the facts.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that “the Defendant, without having been confirmed as to the victim D at an insular place on December 2, 2014, damaged the victim’s reputation by openly pointing out false facts by stating that “D adopted his/her father at the time of sexual intercourse, adopted his/her father with his/her father, left his/her father and her mother in his/her home, and her mother, does not know his/her seat to F. Therefore, G, who is the F’s mother, does not know of it and does not go to F.”
B. This is a crime falling under Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act that cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 312(2) of the Criminal Act. The lower court rendered a guilty verdict without dismissing the instant public prosecution on the ground that it is difficult to view that the victim expressed a written agreement under the victim’s name that “the victim would not raise any civil or criminal objection because he/she received a death penalty from the defendant,” but there was no evidence to prove that the written agreement was made according to the victim’s genuine intent, such as the certificate of personal seal impression, etc.
On April 18, 2016, prior to the issuance of the judgment of the court below, the defendant's defense counsel submitted a written agreement with the victim on April 18, 2016, and the defendant's defense counsel submitted a written agreement with the defendant on April 4, 2016 and attached a confirmation of the victim's personal seal impression (Evidence 1).