(a) Non-existence of a wishing to punish a victim of a crime as provided for in the main sentence of Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and the validity of prosecution;

(b) Time when it is possible to express an intention not to punish a person for a violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents;

(c) Validity of withdrawal of wishing to punish the victim of a traffic accident case under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents after sentencing a court of first instance;

A. The provision of Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents is to interpret that the crime of occupational injury or gross negligence and the crime of Article 74 of the Road Traffic Act are crimes against the so-called crime of no punishment against one's own will. As to these crimes, it is reasonable to interpret that the complaint is the same as the case in which a complaint is subject to victim's complaint, and that the absence of a declaration of wish not to punish (or withdrawal of a wish to punish) is the condition of prosecution. Thus, in a case where a public prosecution is instituted despite the absence of the condition of non-existence of a declaration of wish not to punish the above above, in accordance with subparagraph 2 of Article 327 of the Criminal Procedure Act, a judgment of dismissing a public prosecution shall be issued in accordance with subparagraph 2 of Article 327 of the same Act. In other words, in a case where a public prosecution is instituted even though the above passive condition was met at the time of the public prosecution but it did not come to fall thereafter, the

B. The phrase "not to institute a public prosecution" in the main sentence of Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents is nothing more than the purpose of expressing that the crime under Article 3 (2) of the same Act constitutes a crime of no punishment of no punishment of no punishment of no punishment of no punishment, and there is no ground to interpret that the term "the purpose of the provision of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents is limited to the time prior to the filing of

C. According to Article 232(3) and Article 232(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, withdrawal of a wish to punish a person who wishes to be punished may be made before the judgment of the court of first instance is rendered. Thus, even if such withdrawal is made after the judgment of the court of first instance, it is null and void. Thus, in case where the victim of a violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents expresses his wish to punish the defendant at the investigation stage, but the victim gives a compromise with the defendant and withdraws his wish to punish the defendant

(b)Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 327 Subparag. 2(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 327 Subparag. 6(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 232(3);

Defendant

Prosecutor

Gwangju District Court Decision 82No882 delivered on October 7, 1982

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju District Court Panel Division.

1. We examine the prosecutor's first ground for appeal.

According to Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, with respect to the driver who commits the crime of occupational injury or gross negligence and the crime of bodily injury by gross negligence and the crime of Article 74 of the Road Traffic Act through the traffic of the vehicle, a public prosecution may not be instituted against the express intent of the victim. This is reasonable to interpret that the above crimes are subject to the condition that a criminal complaint in a crime subject to victim's complaint should not be punished like the case where a criminal complaint in a crime subject to victim's complaint is a condition of prosecution.

Therefore, in a case where a public prosecution is instituted despite the absence of an expression of intent that does not wish the above punishment from the beginning, in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the judgment dismissing the public prosecution shall be sentenced in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act. In a case where the public prosecution had been carried out with the above passive conditions at the time of the prosecution but it falls short of such conditions, that is, where a person expresses his wish not to punish or withdraws his wish to punish after the prosecution, the judgment dismissing the public prosecution shall be sentenced in accordance with Article

The issue is that "no prosecution shall be instituted against the clearly expressed will of the victim" in the main text of Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents does not affect the validity of a public prosecution even if the victim expresses his/her wish not to prosecute after the institution of public prosecution or withdraws his/her previous wish to punish even after the institution of public prosecution." Thus, the expression "no public prosecution cannot be instituted" in the above Article is nothing more than the purport of expressing that the crime stipulated in the above provision of the Act constitutes a crime of non-competence. The provision of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents limits the time prior to the institution of public prosecution (or the withdrawal of the wish to punish), such as the theory of lawsuit, to the effect that the provision of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents limits the time of expression of wish

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below sentenced the dismissal of prosecution in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is evident that the victim's knife who was the victim after the judgment of the court of first instance was sentenced does not wish to punish the defendant by reconciliation with

However, according to Article 232(3) and 232(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, withdrawal of wishing to punish in the crime of non-violation of will can be made before the judgment of the court of first instance is rendered. Accordingly, even if withdrawal is made after the judgment of the court of first instance, it is not effective. According to the records, it is clear that the victim's kn's kn's kn's kn's kn's kn's kn's kn's k

Ultimately, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the withdrawal of expression of intent which wishes to punish in the crime of non-violation of intention, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju District Court Panel Division. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)