The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In a case where a crime cannot be prosecuted against the clearly expressed intention of the victim, withdrawal of the wish to punish may be made only before the judgment of the court of first instance is rendered (Article 232(3) and (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act). If the wish to punish is withdrawn after the judgment of the court of first instance is rendered, such withdrawal shall not be effective.

Therefore, we cannot accept the allegation of the grounds of appeal that the public prosecution should be dismissed, since the written agreement was submitted to the court below after the judgment of the court of first instance was rendered.

In addition, the lower court’s determination and measures did not err by infringing on the right to assistance of counsel or the defendant’s defense right, which conducted a trial without a national defense counsel, by deeming that it is unnecessary to appoint a national defense counsel for the protection of the defendant’s rights.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.